Empires most definitely, by definition, weren't, but nations were and are, and civilizations certainly were. But you entirely misinterpret "ethnicity", or else confuse "ethnicity" with "ethnic background". I'm coming to that question later.


that is the crux. I'm surprised u say that. First off, which "Austrians" u find in Sweden? But whatever. The real thing is that, once again and again, I'm talking about EXISTING ethnic groups with CONSCIENCE of commonality. Yes, conscience. Ethnicity is in the eye of the beholder. You most certainly confuse "ethnicity" and "race", or "racialize", biologize ethnicity. Not a biological thing. A cultural one. I thought that was a commonplace knowledge. Every attempt at a definition of ethnicity speaks about conscience, consciousness, perception, belief, "myth of common origin", etc etc. Here are some from the Wiki article:

 "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnicity is also defined from the recognition by others as a distinct group.

Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists."

Speaking of Swedes, as well as of Italians, as I said before: do Goths or Gauls or Etruscan exist as ethnic groups NOW? Do they have such identities? Does anyone identify as a Corynthian colonist in Sardinia, or as an Etruscan? Goths exist as a lifestyle movement, not an ethnic group. There are some consciously Celtic dudes in France, but they are a fraction.

Forget BACKGROUNDs. I'm talking about active collectivities. It;s like I'm saying "Let's treat animals well", and you saying "what, now u wanna dig jurassic fossils out and pat the dinosaurs on the skull?" Swedes exist as an ethnic group speaking same tongue and conscious of common history. Goths (how come u forgot further subdivision, Ost Goths and West Goths?) don't. Irish exist as a coherent, nationalistic collectivity. That's the only "host" group in Rep of Ireland, there are no other. Do u hear me now?


it begins and stops with the question "who are you?" If you find anough people saying they are Etruscans and they'd like to have their own state, I'd have to support them, as any other group. You wouldn't compare Kurds in Turkey and Ligures in Italy. But u actually are doing that.


what? where? where are they in minority? In the country, in a province, subdivision, historic homeland?


eh? did you read something and confuse it with something, or just an anti-Chechen sentiment? All three statements on the Chechens are like from the Mars. (my guess: probably mistook them for Azeris or Turks, and even then it would be incorrect).

 
ha, i have the golden rule: people themselves have all the answers, just ASK THEM through a referendum. They know who they are. They know (more or less) what they want. I never said i'll take a pen and lean over the map redrawing the borders to my liking. I said: ask the people wich state they want to live in. This way u won't bother yourself excavating ethnic fossils like Etrusans. Leave it to the people living in "Etruria" to identify themselves.

Denmark and Germany had a decent amount of bloodshed over the Schleswig (Slesvig) region. After WWI, REFERENDA were held. Northen part went to Denmark, Southern to Germany. Has been quiet since. State border was rectified to correspond with ethnic one. WWI taught some lessons. WHy isn't this solution applicable in other places?

Yes...just like I said: arbitrary and not real. You intend to replace war with referendums. It won't work. I can't believe I'm really having to tell you that. The only working example you have comes from two battered peoples directly AFTER they already fought the bloodiest war of the last century (Danes were neutral of course but you know what I mean).

It never solved issue one here, so it ain't going to do it over there. When people don't get the answer they want they will fight. You might want to consider that after WWI maybe Germans weren't really in a position to dispute that referendum (and maybe they weren' really in the mood to make a fuss over it)  and haven't been up till and including now. Losing a war and a few million people does tend to make a nation more amicable to agreements, I'll give you that. So i suppose your point is that a referendum can replace war as an 'issue solver' so long as it immediately precedes the biggest war of the century.



Ahk

I'm not going to debate what I said about cultures, races the purpose and mechanics of nationhood and a 'civilization' with you Pistachios because you continually confuse what is debatable and what simply isn't.


I notice this article not only has nothing to do with civilization or nationhood, but defines ethnicity pretty much exactly the way I have been. More time wasted. This is precisely the point I've been making. It's arbitrary. Unreal. A pretension. It is something fluid and above all unreliable. "Anyone" can do it. And that's why it won't work. At any point "anyone" can decide they have a 'presumed common genealogy' and sue for 'separation' or 'self-determination' when in reality impetus is always about claiming land and resources. The 'presumed common genealogy' is composed. Are Americans an ethnicity? If so why not simply Floridians?  Why not Texans? Shall they all discombobulate back to pre-civil war? Then what? When does it stop? When we go back to city-states? Albertans never foolishly spoke of separation until they were made 'independent' by the mere presence of oil on 'their' territory, when there wouldn't even be a population worth mention if it weren't for 100 years of centralized subsudy.

You don't answer these questions. You seem to feel you are the arbitrator of when separation is valid and when it isn't, (at which point Im simply being 'silly' I suppose). You don't provide a reason why a group once separated would not simply separate again or where it would stop. If you are completely against centralization of any form then you are an anarchist and there's not much point to talking about nations or civilizations is there? You asked me before if I favored nations like Poland or Hungary returning to the rule of a larger empire and I hate to say it but it seems you miss the point of the historical ebb and flow of the creation and subsequent discombobulation, then recreation of these empires. People divide themselves into 'independent states' which are not independent generally if you consider the needs and resources. Im not going to get into it with you because as I said there's just some things you're missing and im not going to debate areas that really aren't up for debate.
  Read about the creations of Sumer and the Nile and the Indian nations combining. Read about the nebulous Greeks and the kingdoms of Asia minor. These cycles of MISCREANTS suing for separation (or rebellion) whenever the center is weak just because certain individuals or families see a chance for a power grab (course that's when they start talking "presumed common genealogy or ancestry") and then running back to them like mommy when it suits them is so common place....Then what happens? Some 'hero' or 'genius' comes along to expand this idea of 'common genealogy or ancestry' into another empire by bringing these nations together. Oh then what joy they speak of Pistachios. When states have been reconciled and joined they describe it as 'sent from heaven'. No. separation and 'self-determination' is simply an arbitrary definition that is used, not real. And the real impetus is always distribution of wealth and resources. Your silver bullet is more often than not simply a step in the cycle of continual war, not lasting peace, and that's just all there is to it.


I concede the point about the Chechens. I was wrong in the example, but not in the premise. It still stands to reason that any self-perceived group that feels a 'presumed common genealogy or ancestry' can sue for separation/self-determination regardless of the validity of it. This is something "you're" deciding.

Oh, BTW -
Sounds like a very neutral informative article, but whatever. The argument isn't about Chechens and we've never spoken once about the Kurds so slow your roll. I did already concede that there are examples (like your original, on-topic one), where if applied it could bring peace(ish) which is a good enough reason for me regardless of the validity of the 'self-determination' claim. But then we're still waiting for you to learn the 'agree' parts of English. I'm patient. After all I don't know Ukrainian.


What else...
Oh yeah I notice you didn't really answer the Quebec question so much as avoid it. Too busy wetting yourself over my mistake on the Chechens I suppose. Again: how many times has the Quebec referendum come back "No" (as in people just don't fucking want it?) and how many times have MISCREANTS fanned the flames of "presumed common genealogy or ancestry" to the mob of red-necks...
 ...("dere takin r jobs...dats OUR power plant..doze r our fish!" -- oh yeah a real 'ethno-separatist movement' there. Nothing to do with resources or money at all. S'all just "common ancestry" )... 
...in order to make for another referendum (power grab)? So subsequently logic tells us that if a 'referendum' seems to only settle things if it comes up in favour of the MISCREANTS, it's not really solving anything.


Love how you quote only parts of sentences. This was my point: AFTER the worst war of the century (and maybe the last) some nations/peoples were able to come to a sensible agreement over something. My point is the war had some play here (well more than some). Get the point, then answer please. Otherwise it's like taking that last piece of toilet paper and wiping your behind then blowing your nose.  Again you live up to your handle and try and 'talk me to death' instead of communicate, discuss, exchange ideas or even debate.




Ahk

Peisi,

Hamas and Gaza?.. Seems to me Hamas is between a rock and a hard place. But, will they throw out the baby with the bathwater? Or will Israel have to rid (kill) them before Gaza can be part of the solution and not the problem?

Regards,
-Terry

Copy & paste:
Do you really believe the answer you gave here addresses the single word you quoted when the point of it was:


So why are you asking side-stepping like this:
"Did i say Quebec must be independent against the will of quebecois?", hmm? Again you purposely miss the point.

Answer the point: If a referendum on separation only solves the issue if it comes back in one sides favor (otherwise the issue just keeps coming back because they push it - yes Pistachios, AGAINST the majority) then it really doesn't "solve the issue" DOES IT!?

That's like if you and I settle on a boxing match but every time you knock me out we just have a rematch, but the first time I knock YOU out I'll win the million dollars.

Because they were the same f***ing group at one time. That would be the time they were just referred to as the Goths, even though they called themselves something else and were a larger group of individual tribes that banded together under "one common ethnic identity" (a little like an empire, eh?),  and broke apart later into what would be multiple "ethnicities" according to you. Throughout the entire time if they weren't warring with each other they were warring with someone else until they had their asses handed to them. Thanks for proving the point that goes over yer head. Try something more in-depth than wiki next time.

Ahk