• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

#28: July - Sept. 2006 (Non-Fiction)
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

J Seabolt: Technological advances (trains, steamships, telegraph, repeating rifles) made it easier for Empires to be held together by force.I forget the book title now -- the author's name was Jacob Weizenbaum, I believe -- but I read a book about the effects of computer technology on modern society, and one of the points made there was that computers extended beauracracy into a virtual space and make the work of beauracracy so much more efficient that it had become difficult to really address the problems created by beauracracy. Improvement is only improvement from a limited point of view in cases like these.Another political mechanism that bound people together was the concept of the nation. Nationalism became a great glue.Right, but the point that bothers me a little is that the name "nationalism" appears to have been applied to movements and centers that were, in many ways, dissimilar. So what, at root, was the force holding together these national ideals?
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

J Seabolt: I'm curious if Robert Wright's Nonzero is one of these.Nope, haven't read it.So...you want everyone to adopt your multi-pov pov?Nah. It wouldn't really be practical in every situation, and to a lot of people it would just be baggage. But I do think that, in a number of contexts, particularly those related to the determination of various forms of policy, the Progressive pov is potentially disastrous.Way out of my depth, but if you keep sailing and lose your bearings you might want to check out Isaiah Berlin's 'Historical Inevitability', which is a critique of such things. This can be found in Berlin's A Proper Study of Mankind.Berlin is a writer that I'd like to read more of, so I may take your recommendation. So far, the only extended works I've read by Berlin are his study of Tolstoy, "The Fox and the Hedgehog", and his elucidation of the philosophical contributions of "Vico". Both were incredibly lucid.The fitting and connecting of these pieces is consilience and it provides us with a "seamless web of cause and effect" that encompasses "all tangible phenomena" (Consilience p.266).So the ontological version of the Progressive stance would be the belief that we're steadily approaching an integrated knowledge of the principles that govern reality, and that with said knowledge we should know not only how to achieve a utopic existence but also what that utopic existence would be like. Does that seem about right?I'm struggling to reconcile this...MA: Race, to some degree, is the basis of their "nationality", but in the modern context of their political and familial blending, it serves more as a historical myth than a contemporary realitywith this...MA: The conflict was essentially one of national identity, and the national identity of the populations was defined along racial linesIt may help to remind yourself that, in this context, I'm not talking about strictly demarcated biological designations of race, but rather about the Yugoslavs perceptions of race, which conform in individual instances with greater and less fidelity to externally observed determinations of race. In other words, what mattered in the Yugoslav conflict was, first of all, each individual's perception of race, both their own and that of the people around them, and secondly, the aggregate of all those beliefs culminating in broadly defined social attitudes about race. A view of nationality that was not anchored in the historical myth of race might have been more willing to embrace as Croatian, Serbian, Montenegran and so forth, anyone who chose to self-identify as that nationality. My reading suggests that most such people tended to self-identify as Yugoslavs rather than any particular sub-set thereof. But a view of nationality that insisted on racial identity would dismiss as, say, Croat, anyone who had "racial" characteristics that might identify them as Serb. And there were quite likely a large number of Yugoslavs on every side of the factional lines who, from our perspective, misidentified themselves by identifying with a race of which they were not "really" a part.There are two notions of race at play here, and the dividing line is one or perspective. From an external perspective, we might be inclined to view race along strictly genetic lines. From the perspective that, day to day, decided the course of the war, race was a construct loosely adapted from the more generally recognized definition of race. That, in large part, cemented national identity in the dissolution of Yugoslavia, such that a Serb was almost never self-identifying with a purely political body, but with the race who had suffered genocides during and after WWII, or who had lost a crucial battle on the plains of Kosovo, and which was now embodied by a Serbia no longer willing to serve as an organ in the greater body of Yugoslavia.Aren't we really talking about ethnic groupings, with their mixing of cultural/religious/biological/historical/geographical factors, rather than racial groupings?We are, yes. They, however, were not. And that's a crucial part of my interest here, because the question of how a people (as the aggregate of individuals) solidifies itself into a nation depends in great part on how they perceive the issues at stake. In the popular view, race was identified with culture, religion, history, and -- with important political ramifications -- geography. All of those terms, as I understand the situation, were ultimately subordinated to the question of race. That, naturally, led to complications -- how was a Muslim Serb to deal with a set of allegiance that, in the popular view, amounted to a split personality? And to some degree, war had the secondary effect of addressing, in a brutal, levelling way, with those complications.And isn't your use of the term nation to describe geographically fragmented populations problemmatic?It was fatally problemmatic, but it isn't my term. That's how Yugoslavia was structured -- as a Republic encompassing, unifying and mediating between nations.Perhaps it was an updated version of an old prejudice, but in its updating it placed itself in a "scientific" wrapper that gave it authority it might not otherwise have had.A different kind of authority, perhaps, but not more authority. The great chain of being was almost universally accepted during its heyday, as being part of the explanatory inventory of theology during a period when all of Europe was encompassed in a veritable theocracy. Social Darwinism, by contrast, has always had its detractors. Granting the possibility I raised in my last post, you'd have to view social Darwinism as a fallback position for the hierarchical features of the Great Chain.
J Seabolt

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

MA: Does that seem about right?I don't believe Wilson gets into any Utopian scenarios. He'd be happy if we all got a little smarter and did less damage to the biosphere.As for the Yugoslavia stuff, I now understand that you shifted your point of view from yourself to a "Yugoslav's" point of view. So, where are we? You and your Yugoslav friend define the term nation loosely. You agree that the term race as used by your Yugoslav friend is defined loosely and is actually more like the term ethnicity because when your Yugoslav friend uses the term he is really referring to the whole bundle of characteristics normally associated with ethnicity. So, now we have a "Yugoslavian" who defines "nation" loosely and "race" loosely then makes them synonymous in his head. From his standpoint he belongs to a nation/race, is surrounded by other nations/races, fights other nations/races.MA, I don't know why you would want to set something like this up unless you must talk about race. I can think of only one reason for this -- you have the "race" meme embedded in your mind, and it is trying to replicate.MA: Granting the possibility I raised in my last post, you'd have to view social Darwinism as a fallback position for the hierarchical features of the Great Chain.So?I'll grant you your original point, but this fallback position was given a pseudo-scientific boost and became influential over a range of political and ideological topics (so called Social Darwinism was just one aspect of the misapplication of evolutionary thinking). This peaked near the end of the 19th century (about the time H.G Wells wrote The Time Machine) but continued to be influential well into the middle part of the 20th century. What counts is whether it was influential during the years of this book, and not whether it was more or less influential than at some time in the distant past. Certainly it should be factored into the worldviews of many of the decision makers in Fromkin's book. Edited by: J Seabolt at: 7/18/06 12:03 am
User avatar
Loricat
Laughs at Einstein
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:00 am
19

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

Wow, you two have really flown with this discussion...and I appreciated reading through it.I want to bounce a few ideas off of you, starting with a recent exchange that intrigued me. JSeabolt: Aren't we really talking about ethnic groupings, with their mixing of cultural/religious/biological/historical/geographical factors, rather than racial groupings?Mad: We are, yes. They, however, were not. And that's a crucial part of my interest here, because the question of how a people (as the aggregate of individuals) solidifies itself into a nation depends in great part on how they perceive the issues at stake.So all of those factors -- culture, religion, biology, history & geography -- are part of any given national identity. With distance of time and space, we, intellectualizing, can see the distinctions, but those in-the-moment are less likely to analyze what aspects of their nationhood are under siege.It seems to me that in a lot of countries, the concept of what constitutes the people's identity is more simple. In Korea & Japan, biology seems to be the primary focus of nationalistic spirit -- everything else is important, but their culture, for example, is crucial because of their racial identity. I lived in Korea for three years, and while they tolerate foreigners, the largest...insult to their natures are the 'banana' Koreans -- the Koreans who have lived overseas since they were kids, who lookKorean, but aren't, culturally, or often not even linguistically. Japan too...I had a student once from Japan, who told me "I'm North Korean." What that meant was her grandparents arrived from NK, her parents (born in Japan) married within the NK community, and she was born in Japan -- but could not be considered Japanese. She didn't have a Japanese passport, instead she had an identity card that proclaimed her NK blood. It's the same there for any foreign 'racial' group.Unlike Canada (and other countries...Australia, the USA, and??), where if you're born here while your parents are on vacation, you get Canadian citizenship. Geography, then, is the fulcrum of our national identity, on which balances our hodge-podge of ethnicities, captured under two official languages (and loads of 'unofficial' ones).Germany has its folk culture & shared historyFrance has its language (in all of its purity...they are utterly amused by Quebecois French -- it's essentially a 500-year-old museum piece with weird Anglophone additions and a 'cute' accent, as I was told I had once). Could we say then that part of the problem in the Middle East is perhaps a cacophony of competing elements in their national identities? It's not mostly geography, or mostly religion, or mostly 'racial homogeniety', but all of it mixed together, without a single thing to focus on.Just throwing this out there.... "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

J Seabolt: You agree that the term race as used by your Yugoslav friend is defined loosely and is actually more like the term ethnicity because when your Yugoslav friend uses the term he is really referring to the whole bundle of characteristics normally associated with ethnicity.Actually, I see your point about ethnicity now, as well. In fact, I'm not terribly sure why I didn't get it in the first place. Yeah, the Yugoslav perspective was more about the loose bundle of associations described by ethnicity than the more concrete set of biological characteristics that go into, say, American race discrimination. Determining the place of race in Yugoslav ethnicity is a complex thing, and I probably overstated its importance to some degree.So, now we have a "Yugoslavian" who defines "nation" loosely and "race" loosely then makes them synonymous in his head.I don't know if they really defined "nation" loosely. While Yugoslavia was still a viable political body, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, etc. seem to have conformed to the definition of fourth-world nations -- that is, nations imbedded in a larger political body. Although, I'm not terribly sure how that status would play out, since technically any communist nation falls automatically under the category of second-world nation. At any rate, all of the nations subsumed under the republic of Yugoslavia had precise geographic boundaries and their own governing bodies, including their own presidents.I can think of only one reason for this -- you have the "race" meme embedded in your mind, and it is trying to replicate.Damn memes.I'll grant you your original point, but this fallback position was given a pseudo-scientific boost and became influential over a range of political and ideological topics (so called Social Darwinism was just one aspect of the misapplication of evolutionary thinking).I don't know that the point is really worth arguing. I brought it up only as a suggestion for tracing the idea further back than Darwin. In fact, it seems to me that "On the Origin of Species" itself has the tendency of blurring the sort of distinct categorical divisions necessary for a hierarchical structure -- the early chapters, in fact, question the validity of "species" as a natural category -- such that some adjuct become necessary to explain the hierarchical features of social Darwinism. But that's rather incidental to your point -- it doesn't so much matter where the hierarchical structure of social Darwinism comes from so long as we can reasonably assume that social Darwinism was a contributing factor to political policy during the formation of the Middle East. I'd just like to see more evidence to that end before drawing any conclusions on its impact.Loricat: So all of those factors -- culture, religion, biology, history & geography -- are part of any given national identity.Yeah, they can be, and part of why I raised the whole question is that I want to understand how a given group decides on which factor to emphasize in building their national identity, and why it sometimes works, and why it sometimes fails. More generally, I'm interested in what kind of thing a nation is if it can be constructed around any of these things.With distance of time and space, we, intellectualizing, can see the distinctions, but those in-the-moment are less likely to analyze what aspects of their nationhood are under siege.I don't know. My impression of the formation of Germany as a nation is that the people involved were pretty clear on choosing German folk culture as the focal point around which to organize the new, discreet political body.In Korea & Japan, biology seems to be the primary focus of nationalistic spirit -- everything else is important, but their culture, for example, is crucial because of their racial identity.I can't speak much for Korea, and you seem to know enough about it that I'm safe in deferring to your judgment, but from what I know of Japan it seems to me that culture is significantly less important than race in determining their national identity. This has become increasingly more obvious in the years after World War II, from which point the Japanese were increasingly willing to co-opt their traditional culture in exchange for prominance in the international community. But at the same time, they remain discriminatory against the races whose culture they've co-opted.I see your point, though. When culture is important, it's important because they've linked it to the issue of race.Unlike Canada (and other countries...Australia, the USA, and??), where if you're born here while your parents are on vacation, you get Canadian citizenship. Geography, then, is the fulcrum of our national identity, on which balances our hodge-podge of ethnicities, captured under two official languages (and loads of 'unofficial' ones).I'm not sure. That looks like an argument for geography, but I'd say that our ideals play into it a great deal. The loopholes for gaining Canadian and American citizenship seem designed, in some instances, to deny the accidents of birth in determining a person's access to American and Canadian ideal -- liberty, for instance, or justice.Could we say then that part of the problem in the Middle East is perhaps a cacophony of competing elements in their national identities?Hmm. That's a suggestion that warrants more scrutiny, I'd say. For the moment, at least, I'd say that the problem isn't so much that Middle Easterners can't decide on a focal point for national identity but rather than the focal points that they would choose don't necessarily mesh with the national identities imposed on them by foreign powers in the period described by Fromkin's books. Even where there are points of agreement among the nations of the Middle East, their national histories over the past 80 years or so serve to disrupt those agreements. They may be saying, in effect, "Hey, we'd love to join forces on the strength of our shared religion or culture, but you guys did this to us 30 years ago, and we're not ready to forgive that without some bigger concessions."But that's just conjecture at this point. I really need to know more about the history of the region before I settle on an explanation. Fortunately, we're already reading about that.
User avatar
Loricat
Laughs at Einstein
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:00 am
19

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

Mad: For the moment, at least, I'd say that the problem isn't so much that Middle Easterners can't decide on a focal point for national identity but rather than the focal points that they would choose don't necessarily mesh with the national identities imposed on them by foreign powers in the period described by Fromkin's books.That makes sense -- in a sense, it's irrelevant what the dominant focus of any given 'nationhood' in the region if they've all had their various borders drawn by outside forces.But yes, reading on.... "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd
J Seabolt

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

Loricat: Could we say then that part of the problem in the Middle East is perhaps a cacophony of competing elements in their national identities? It's not mostly geography, or mostly religion, or mostly 'racial homogeniety', but all of it mixed together, without a single thing to focus on.I thought your entire post was very interesting. Whether you meant it to be a kind of summing up of some of the other posts or not, it had that effect on me. This quote at the end points in a productive direction. To me the nation thing consists of a package of affinities. At this time in relation to the Middle East (excluding Turkey and Iran and Israel), I'd say that the forces of national identity are often too weak to overcome other forces (some of these forces are discussed by Fromkin). This subject becomes more important in the latter stages of the book when the post-war phase plays itself out.MadArchitect: I don't know if they really defined "nation" loosely.I reread the thread, and I don't think we have major disagreements. There were a couple of things I wanted to mention in order to clarify what I said in other posts. One has to do with my objections to using the term nation in certain ways. My view is that since we ultimately are talking about nation-state building then when the term nation is used to describe a dispersed community that cannot hope to include everyone in a potential nation then it creates problems to call that dispersed community a nation. That usage is proper from a dictionary standpoint, but I feel that it gets a bit confusing, so I labeled it as being defined "loosely". Another clarification I wanted to make has to do with my objections to using race as a "rallying point" (remember that phrase from the beginning of the thread?) is that as a biologically based affinity it is a weaker notion than, let's say, kinship or tribe (with "tribe" being loosely used to mean some local extended family). If you want to argue for blood connections and you want those blood connections to be racial then you must simultaneously argue against the stronger notions of kinship and tribe to have an effective national community. In order to argue against the stronger notions of kinship and tribe then you need to tap into the package of affinities that make up a national identity. So, to me these things are all connected together--difficult to parse.
User avatar
Loricat
Laughs at Einstein
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:00 am
19

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

J Seabolt: Whether you meant it to be a kind of summing up of some of the other posts or not, it had that effect on me.Yeah, it was meant as a summing up. You two had done so much in the days I was not paying attention, it was how I was processing your comments, mixed with my own pet theories.J Seabolt: ...difficult to parse.Understatement of the year. Off of dictionary.com:Quote:na·tion n. 1. 1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" (Robert Conquest). 4. 1. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 2. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.So, how about some stylistic clarification: a nation is the political entity, for which we, here, could just use country. There's a geographical concept of nation, which we can use the word territory for. If it is a tribe-like nation, then we can use tribe. If it is a group that is self-identified through a rallying point of religion/race/language/etc./etc., then we use nation.[Lori has a teacher moment.] "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd
J Seabolt

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

Loricat: So, how about some stylistic clarificationThat seems reasonable. I don't have a problem with sticking to agreed conventions, although in place of "country" I'd prefer "nation-state" and "state." I have a feeling that the difference between a nation-state and a state might have some bearing on the situation in the Mideast.
User avatar
Loricat
Laughs at Einstein
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:00 am
19

Re: Race and nationality as the cornerstone of Empire

Unread post

better distinction, yes. "All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds." Loricat's Book NookCelebrating the Absurd
Post Reply

Return to “A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East - by David Fromkin”