petrushka.googol Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Nations are created around ideas. There must be common grounds and homogeneity among peoples that cause the building of nations. Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language 2) Race 3) Religion 4) Political philosophy Some or all of these factors contribute to development of nations. Please opine.
Strange Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 There are many nations which lack some or all of those attributes of homogeneity. India is a prime example: multiple languages (multiple language families), multiple "races" (whatever that means), multiple religions and multiple political philosophies. I imagine that the only nations that might fit your description are small, isolated islands.
swansont Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 United States. No homogeneity of religion, nor really of language. Homogeneity of race was for pretty much the worst reason possible. There wasn't even homogeneity of political philosophy, but the founding fathers were reasonable enough that a compromise was able to be reached. Even today there is no homogeneity of political philosophy.
petrushka.googol Posted July 17, 2015 Author Posted July 17, 2015 There are many nations which lack some or all of those attributes of homogeneity. India is a prime example: multiple languages (multiple language families), multiple "races" (whatever that means), multiple religions and multiple political philosophies. I imagine that the only nations that might fit your description are small, isolated islands. In India most people have the same or similar genotypes. United States. No homogeneity of religion, nor really of language. Homogeneity of race was for pretty much the worst reason possible. There wasn't even homogeneity of political philosophy, but the founding fathers were reasonable enough that a compromise was able to be reached. Even today there is no homogeneity of political philosophy. In America Communism never thrived.
swansont Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 In America Communism never thrived. Not true according to Joseph McCarthy. And in general, it depends on your definition of "thrived". I remember Gus Hall being on the ballot, so it thrived to the point where someone ran for president as a communist, for long stretches of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Presidential_tickets And today, if you believe the Right, we have a lot of socialists, and have had a long list of third-party candidates. http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html In a broader view, that's an overly specific requirement. One does not need communism be present to refute the claim. The existence of a strong second party is sufficient.
John Cuthber Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Nations are created around ideas. There must be common grounds and homogeneity among peoples that cause the building of nations. Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language 2) Race 3) Religion 4) Political philosophy Some or all of these factors contribute to development of nations. Please opine. Then it seems that probably no nation exists.
ajb Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 There must be common grounds and homogeneity among peoples that cause the building of nations. Probably not so much today, but for sure I expect that most 'old nations' are centred on the cooperation of local tribes. Of course much has happened since; 'nations' can effectively move and disappear totally.
Strange Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 In India most people have the same or similar genotypes. That wasn't listed as one of your initial requirements and isn't related to any of them. (Arguably, it is related to "race" except there is no such thing.) Also, I find that rather implausible. There have been many waves of migration into India from different places - which is one reason for the linguistic diversity (including languages from the Indo-European, Drvidian, Austro-Asiatic and other families). I would be very surprised in this wasn't reflected in modern Indian genotypes.
swansont Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Probably not so much today, but for sure I expect that most 'old nations' are centred on the cooperation of local tribes. Of course much has happened since; 'nations' can effectively move and disappear totally. Even then, agreements by leaders of tribes does not imply a homogeneity of political philosophy amongst the tribe. Most of the members might disagree, but they have no say in the matter.
ajb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Even then, agreements by leaders of tribes does not imply a homogeneity of political philosophy amongst the tribe. Most of the members might disagree, but they have no say in the matter. True, however I imagine that such very early cooperation were amongst tribes of a similar ethnicity and religion. But I totally speculate here.
Strange Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 True, however I imagine that such very early cooperation were amongst tribes of a similar ethnicity and religion. But I totally speculate here. That seems likely, in most cases at least. On the other hand most wars were also probably between nearby tribes of similar enthicity and religion. 1
ajb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 That seems likely, in most cases at least. On the other hand most wars were also probably between nearby tribes of similar enthicity and religion. Building nations and war making come hand in hand together. 2
swansont Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 True, however I imagine that such very early cooperation were amongst tribes of a similar ethnicity and religion. But I totally speculate here. A lot of cases of tribes, you were somehow related to everyone else. But nations are bigger, and that's one of the problems — the member tribes carry with them the grudges of the past. But if nations were homogeneous in this way, we wouldn't observe cases of "ethnic cleansing". We do, so the premise is wrong.
John Cuthber Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 A lot of cases of tribes, you were somehow related to everyone else... We all still are, and if more people remembered that...
swansont Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 We all still are, and if more people remembered that... Sorry, that should be "somewhat closely related".
Strange Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Building nations and war making come hand in hand together. Nice insight!
petrushka.googol Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language : Germany / England etc 2) Race : Arab countries / China 3) Religion : Jewish state of Israel / Islamic republic of Iran 4) Political philosophy : Cuba / North Korea These are a few examples which support the hypothesis.
Strange Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 1) Language : Germany / England etc There are multiple dialects - some mutually incomprehensible - in both these countries. In the United Kingdom, there are at least 4 distinct languages. In the past there were more. 2) Race : Arab countries / China You need to define what this word "race" means. There are multiple ethnic groups in both these countries. For example, the majority of people in China are Han Chinese, but there are also Zhuang, Uyghur, Hui, Manchu, Miao, Yi, Tujia, Tibetan, Mongol, Dong, Buyei, Yao, Bai, Korean, Hani, Li, Kazakh, Dai and others. Many of these do not speak Chinese as their main language. (And note that Chinese is a family of languages, not a language.) 3) Religion : Jewish state of Israel / Islamic republic of Iran In Israel there are significant numbers of Christians and Muslims (which causes some tension). In Iran there are Moslems, Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, etc. 4) Political philosophy : Cuba / North Korea Cuba has political dissidents. (N Korea has dead people. I'm not sure you can call this sort of brutal repression "homogeneity".) So, you have provided a few examples which you claim meet ONE of your requirements, but looking closer we see that they don't really meet any.
swansont Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language : Germany / England etc 2) Race : Arab countries / China 3) Religion : Jewish state of Israel / Islamic republic of Iran 4) Political philosophy : Cuba / North Korea These are a few examples which support the hypothesis. But it should be easier to find examples if the hypothesis were true, rather than finding these few cases that only look true superficially
Delta1212 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Homogeneity is essentially of : 1) Language : Germany / England etc 2) Race : Arab countries / China 3) Religion : Jewish state of Israel / Islamic republic of Iran 4) Political philosophy : Cuba / North Korea These are a few examples which support the hypothesis. I'll leave Engkand aside for a moment since most of the major language differences occur between England, Scotland, Wales, etc rather than within England itself, but I can still definitely tell that you've not spent much if any time in Germany. The first time I went, I spent a while in the South to start and I couldn't understand a word anyone was saying when they spoke German. I figured my German was just much worse than I thought it was. Next stop was Berlin and everyone's speech was clear as day. I made have gotten a little over-excited with the first guy I met who was asking me for help finding his way around as I passed him in the hallway at the hotel, just because he was the first person I actually understood. It was enlightening.
Strange Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I was in Italy once with an Italian friend from another part of the country. The locals asked him what country he was from. The idea of a national language is quite a modern one. It probably followed the invention of printing.
petrushka.googol Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 Statistically significant numbers count towards any hypotheses. If 1% of the subjects don't conform to the standard that is not enough to discredit the theory. The vox populi is the face of the nation.
swansont Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Statistically significant numbers count towards any hypotheses. If 1% of the subjects don't conform to the standard that is not enough to discredit the theory. 1%? That bears little resemblance to this situation. You have the majority not conforming, which is the problem.
imatfaal Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I was in Italy once with an Italian friend from another part of the country. The locals asked him what country he was from. The idea of a national language is quite a modern one. It probably followed the invention of printing. In England it is thought to have followed the introduction of the common law and judges, rules, laws etc being central promulgated, publicised, and prosecuted. And to agree with Strange and Swansont - your examples are just plain wrong. England is incredibly diverse and always has been - way back in the middle ages you would have celts, norse, normans, angles, saxons, romans, picts, belgae, jews. Just look at the name of our land - England derives from a part of what is now Germany
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now