does each ethnicity deserve its own nation-state?

[lemur]

This topic is a little awkward, imo, because it implies legitimacy in ethnic segregation; but since globalism has been for centuries evolving as national-statism and seems to continue in that direction, I am curious what people think of this. Should each ethnic identity be associated with a corresponding region or should regional governance be neutralized of all ethnocentrism - or something in between? How should ethnicity be regulated in politics/governance?

[CaptainPanic]

Shall we start off by clearly defining an "Ethnic identity" first?

Shall we then define what a nation-state is (just how independent is it)?

Shall we then proceed by finding several examples, in all continents (both Americas, Asia, Africa Australia and Europe)?

 

It might seem quite straightforward in the USA where you have the native Americans who have clear origins. It's a lot more vague in Europe where we have loads of groups who are ethnically or culturally different but live in a single country or across several, and who are nearly always intermixed. And I just don't know about the implications of your suggestion in Asia. I think larger countries like India, China, Russia would completely collapse if all ethnic groups would get their own nation-state. World politics would be thrown into complete chaos... and no doubt many wars would break out where the ethnic groups have moved around and were shuffled in the past, or where resources are of interest.

[lemur]

Shall we start off by clearly defining an "Ethnic identity" first?

To me, ethnicity is an individual's sense of cultural identity and while it may make reference to collective/categorical ideas like race, nation, religion, etc. it can be mixed and/or multiple. Thus, I already think it's a bit of a problem when some people treat/view ethnicity as a relatively homogeneous group of people who are all basically the same culturally. I think this represses recognition of individuality, which is of course part of the culture of collectivism procured using ethnic-identity in many cases. So, to answer your question specifically, ethnic-identity can't really be clearly defined, but it is still utilized as an impetus for social and individual organization in various ways - of which statism is sometimes one.

 

Shall we then define what a nation-state is (just how independent is it)?

Materially they're not usually, but where they are successful is in promoting cultural hegemony and regulating cultural behavior in a way that promotes the ability to practice certain ethnic culture more than others, i.e. in the form of allowing speakers of a language to interact broadly using that language, have institutions in the language, socialize children, etc. The uglier side of them (imo ugly) is that they can also promote ethnic legitimacy (by regulating belonging via migration rules, for example) and promote a higher standard of living for citizens than is available globally, because they can exclude non-citizens from access to tax-funding.

 

Shall we then proceed by finding several examples, in all continents (both Americas, Asia, Africa Australia and Europe)?

I'm weary of using examples to discuss this, because that would presume that existing manifestations should serve as a guide for potential ones. It's like looking at who's currently in prison as a guide for what kind of laws should be made to incriminate and imprison people.

 

It might seem quite straightforward in the USA where you have the native Americans who have clear origins. It's a lot more vague in Europe where we have loads of groups who are ethnically or culturally different but live in a single country or across several, and who are nearly always intermixed.

Why is ethnic identity and the will to differentiate and separate so much stronger with European culture, do you think? I have the sense that ethnicism is promoted at the level of cultural ideology/propaganda. It isn't really logical, though, that so many people dislike the idea of the EU as an institution for continental integration yet they also don't want to dis-integrate the nation-states any further. I mean, you should either support ethnic autonomy and statism/separation or freedom of movement/residence/work etc., right? It also makes me wonder why people were against the Berlin Wall and the iron curtain if they like having separately governed ethnic-nations so much.

 

And I just don't know about the implications of your suggestion in Asia. I think larger countries like India, China, Russia would completely collapse if all ethnic groups would get their own nation-state. World politics would be thrown into complete chaos... and no doubt many wars would break out where the ethnic groups have moved around and were shuffled in the past, or where resources are of interest.

Yes, ethnic territorialism is always a basis for social-exclusion, disenfranchisement, subjugation of individuals/individuality, and ethnic violence like war, terrorism, genocide, etc. but this is because so many people are willing to defend ethnicism to the death, which means they must really like it (or at least be afraid of losing it through intermarrying, mixing, sharing public/economic resources, and otherwise interacting and integrating). But I find it awkward to claim to imply that it is legitimate to protect the ethnic territorializing of existing regimes to the detriment of others who would seek similar territorial autonomy just because it supports economics and politics that serve the interest of the existing regimes. Isn't that like telling someone that they can't have the same rights as you do because if they did, it would interfere with your ability to have those rights?

 

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

Oh, if you take the definition of an ethnic group that broad as to include race, nation, religion, etc., many families exist that might be part of up to 10 ethnic groups, with single family members belonging to multiple groups. When ethnic groups have gradients rather than a clearly defined border, what would you propose? Where do you draw the line? Why allow these groups any rights based on ethnicity?

 

I think that in Europe, ethnicity has historically been made important by our politicians and dictators... usually either through religion or nationalism. Then people have clearly defined borders - you're either part or not a part of a group.

But in fact, today a nation is simply that group of people that have joined together in a functioning democracy. And European countries most certainly do not consist of a single ethnic group - and I don't think they ever did, actually. Only when it's the World/European Cup Football are we united as one... but that's just a few weeks every other year.

I do not think we should change our democractic systems too fast (and that's the main reason people don't like the EU too much: it's going really fast and we don't get to vote about much).

 

However, if a group of people - regardless of ethnicity - want independence, and they can form a new democratic nation that does not immediately start a conflict with its neighbors, then I think this group of people should get independence. And if that happens to be a single ethnic group, then so be it.

[Marat]

The notion that a state's boundaries should correspond to those of some ethnic group is actually a novel idea, introduced by the German Romantic thinkers led by J. G. Herder starting around 1780. Before then, people were willing to conceive of themselves as owing loyalty to a monarch who would govern humanely rather than to a state which embodied their own ethnic character. This is how multi-ethnic states such as Austria-Hungary developed: no one considered it necessary or useful that a state and an ethnic unit overlap. Generally, the effect of ethnic nationalism has been negative, since it has been the spark for countless wars (the South Slavs wanting a unified state even at the cost of tearing apart Austria-Hungary by violence started World War I; the Germans wanting all people of German nationality, even in the Danzig Corridor, to belong to one nation started World War II, on to Chechnia, etc., in more recent times).

 

If the nationalist idea had never developed the world might have been much more peaceful and millions of lives would have been spared, and how much of value has been achieved by ethnic nationalism? Arguably the greatest cultural achievements come not from subdividing ethnicities by state units but by combining them to stimulate fruitful cross-fertilization. E.g., the genius of Franz Kafka came from the fact that he was living in Bohemia in Austria-Hungary while experiencing his Jewish identity in the German language.

[lemur]

Oh, if you take the definition of an ethnic group that broad as to include race, nation, religion, etc., many families exist that might be part of up to 10 ethnic groups, with single family members belonging to multiple groups. When ethnic groups have gradients rather than a clearly defined border, what would you propose? Where do you draw the line? Why allow these groups any rights based on ethnicity?

 

I think that in Europe, ethnicity has historically been made important by our politicians and dictators... usually either through religion or nationalism. Then people have clearly defined borders - you're either part or not a part of a group.

But in fact, today a nation is simply that group of people that have joined together in a functioning democracy. And European countries most certainly do not consist of a single ethnic group - and I don't think they ever did, actually. Only when it's the World/European Cup Football are we united as one... but that's just a few weeks every other year.

I think ethnicity has been used along with other things to generate collectivist social solidarity because it makes people easier to control. All these things you mention have this effect. Although some people will argue that social control is in and of itself beneficial, that is a vague and overly broad argument, imo, that has to be dissected into specific instances and consequences of particular mechanisms of control. Outside of social control, though, ethnic proximity has the benefit of allowing people to be geographically near people who speak a common language and/or family members. The problem is that bitter divisions between people who define themselves as having ethnic belonging in the nation and those they regard as ethnically other and/or not belonging; the problem is that those divisions form among people who speak a common language, have common cultural experiences, etc. Thus, when anti-migration ideologies are popular, the people they target are being banished from situations in which they can speak (adopted) language and practice (adopted culture). Imagine you're an EU muslim and you get banished to somewhere in the middle east. What do you do with your EU language(s) and culture(s)?

 

I do not think we should change our democractic systems too fast (and that's the main reason people don't like the EU too much: it's going really fast and we don't get to vote about much).

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that ethnic-organizing is on the same page with democracy. Remember that a half century ago, democracy involved a deadly conflict with national socialism.

 

However, if a group of people - regardless of ethnicity - want independence, and they can form a new democratic nation that does not immediately start a conflict with its neighbors, then I think this group of people should get independence. And if that happens to be a single ethnic group, then so be it.

And should the emergent government be able to regulate migration arbitrarily?

Edited March 24, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

As far as I'm concerned, state and religion should be separated.

But we might as well make that even broader: state and ethnicity should be separated. States should have nothing to do with ethnicity... it only creates trouble.

 

There is such a concept as 'integration', which effectively means you become part of a society, but not necessarily an ethnicity.

 

Immigration then is an interesting topic... and it's a topic that I haven't really figured out if I am honest.

There are about 6 billion people worldwide who would probably like to move to where the richer 1 billion people live, because of the (much) higher standard of living. I really don't know on what grounds we can make a selection... and although it's an interesting question worthy of its own thread, I will not answer it here.

I guess right now we make a selection on nationality, education and (potential) income... it probably makes sense.

[lemur]

As far as I'm concerned, state and religion should be separated.

But we might as well make that even broader: state and ethnicity should be separated. States should have nothing to do with ethnicity... it only creates trouble.

I don't even think language should be identified with other forms of ethnic identity, such as nationality, race, or religion, but it does by many people almost by default. But when you say that states should be ethnically neutral (and I agree actually), you're left with the issue of what to do about language culture, because it is quite difficult for any and all languages to be equally or even sufficiently practiced in the shadow of one or more languages viewed as dominant. This is especially the case, imo, when ethnic identity assertions create intimidation against using languages other than the one preferred by those whose ethnic identity and preferences are dominating publicly.

 

Immigration then is an interesting topic... and it's a topic that I haven't really figured out if I am honest.

There are about 6 billion people worldwide who would probably like to move to where the richer 1 billion people live, because of the (much) higher standard of living. I really don't know on what grounds we can make a selection... and although it's an interesting question worthy of its own thread, I will not answer it here.

I guess right now we make a selection on nationality, education and (potential) income... it probably makes sense.

Would you hold the same view of such "cherry-picking" if your regional economy was suppressed and you were applying for visas to regions where economic opportunities looked better? Personally, I think the economic migration issue would be helped if there was better economic integration (harmonization) among various regions. The conflict is between whether to raise material standards in poor regions, reduce materialism in wealthier regions, or some of both. I think it has to lean more toward reducing materialism in wealthier regions, because people have been talking about increasing material standards for the global poor forever and it just doesn't happen. I don't think it can, actually, because I think the wealthy economies have created unsustainable consumption patterns that necessitate class-divisions to limit consumption for the lower classes and ensure they contribute large amounts of labor to providing the wealthy with their privileges. But, you're right, this is a topic that spills over into new threads.

Edited March 24, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

I don't even think language should be identified with other forms of ethnic identity, such as nationality, race, or religion, but it does by many people almost by default. But when you say that states should be ethnically neutral (and I agree actually), you're left with the issue of what to do about language culture, because it is quite difficult for any and all languages to be equally or even sufficiently practiced in the shadow of one or more languages viewed as dominant. This is especially the case, imo, when ethnic identity assertions create intimidation against using languages other than the one preferred by those whose ethnic identity and preferences are dominating publicly.

I think the answer to that is time.

It will go the way it goes... and with very dominant forms of media that are nowadays truly global, it only makes sense that language becomes a more global thing too.

 

We can try to stop that, but I think it's pointless.

 

Would you hold the same view of such "cherry-picking" if your regional economy was suppressed and you were applying for visas to regions where economic opportunities looked better? Personally, I think the economic migration issue would be helped if there was better economic integration (harmonization) among various regions. The conflict is between whether to raise material standards in poor regions, reduce materialism in wealthier regions, or some of both. I think it has to lean more toward reducing materialism in wealthier regions, because people have been talking about increasing material standards for the global poor forever and it just doesn't happen. I don't think it can, actually, because I think the wealthy economies have created unsustainable consumption patterns that necessitate class-divisions to limit consumption for the lower classes and ensure they contribute large amounts of labor to providing the wealthy with their privileges. But, you're right, this is a topic that spills over into new threads.

I think you've understood why I stopped the discussion regarding immigration. Immigration is heavily influenced by world politics, the economy, population growth, religion. That's such a broad topic that we must leave it here.

 

I think the most interesting point in your post is that you mention languages. And I think that in this modern world, a language can give an ethnic group something unique. I think it's not religion, nationality or genetics. But at the same time, not everybody who speaks the same language belongs to a single ethnic group. But whenever people feel different, they will develop their own slang in a matter of just a few years or decades.

 

But language evolves fast and even individual people change their accents and language as they grow older. I don't think that it should influence states or borders. Only if we would be able to find a more flexible model for a nation-state can we change them. Right now, these are very rigid institutions, and changing them often will create instability.

[lemur]

I think the answer to that is time.

It will go the way it goes... and with very dominant forms of media that are nowadays truly global, it only makes sense that language becomes a more global thing too.

 

We can try to stop that, but I think it's pointless.

Well, many people are working relentlessly to achieve their political will regarding these matters. I think the rational approach is to identify a sustainable long-term approach and formulate policy and action initiatives that usher the future in smoothly.

 

I think you've understood why I stopped the discussion regarding immigration. Immigration is heavily influenced by world politics, the economy, population growth, religion. That's such a broad topic that we must leave it here.

Plus, it is a topic that tends to cause bickering and ruin forums. You'd think scientific neutrality would help, and it does to some extent, but there are always those who are only scientific in their technical knowledge while their personal/political attitude is to fight insistently for their ethnic dominance, territorial control, etc.

 

I think the most interesting point in your post is that you mention languages. And I think that in this modern world, a language can give an ethnic group something unique. I think it's not religion, nationality or genetics. But at the same time, not everybody who speaks the same language belongs to a single ethnic group. But whenever people feel different, they will develop their own slang in a matter of just a few years or decades.

It occurred to me one day that there's such a gap between the attitude people have toward school-learned languages and languages whose learning is viewed as more 'organic.' While there are certain nuances that come with each method, it is an egoistic game to focus on the distinction instead of just using language to communicate. The purpose of language is to use it in practice, so that leads to the issue of ensuring that speakers of a given language, regardless of how they learned that language get the opportunity to use it in practice on a daily basis. Since migration is so strictly controlled and there are so many economic factors involves, etc., it makes sense for governments globally to come up with policies that promote multiple language venues in cities, but somehow people find it more rational to tolerate popular ethnocentrism that insists on repressing minority languages as much as possible.

 

But language evolves fast and even individual people change their accents and language as they grow older. I don't think that it should influence states or borders. Only if we would be able to find a more flexible model for a nation-state can we change them. Right now, these are very rigid institutions, and changing them often will create instability.

Like I said, I think language should be disconnected from both ethnicity and statism by having multiple non-ethnic language venues in cities globally. However, the issue still remains whether people shouldn't have access to refuge in an "ethnic homeland." This issue is always cited with regard to Israel's existence in the wake of the European 20th century holocaust. It makes sense if you've ever experienced what it's like to be treated constantly as an anomaly on the basis of ideologies of regional (non)belonging. Obviously the problem is when you provide a state for people to seek refuge as the dominant ethnicity, it has the side-effect of making minority ethnicities "subaltern." So the question is really how to prevent discrimination for everyone anywhere, while still allowing cultural freedom. Because these are such tough issues, I think people keep defaulting to whatever they can formulate as a status-quo, but the problem with that is that it keeps leading to the same problems over and over.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

I get the feeling that you wish to break up the concept of ethnic groups altogether... make people just 'citizen of the world', where people aren't part of a subculture or subgroup of any kind. And although that would solve a lot of problems, and it might create that united earth which people think is a goal of humanity, it's just not gonna work.

 

We could remove the language barrier, but people will find another reason to identify themselves with a group. In the future, that may not be nationality, religion or language... there will be something else.

 

We're group animals. Being part of a group makes us feel comfortable. And I don't think that people will feel comfortable being part of a herd so big that it is global. At least, not yet.

[zapatos]

I agree CP. People like being part of a group, but only when there is an opposing group (Cardinals fan vs. Cubs fan, Christian vs. Jew, Prius owner vs. Humvee owner, etc.). I believe we won't really feel so much a part of a global group until we find intelligent life elsewhere. At that point we will very much feel we have something in common.

[lemur]

I get the feeling that you wish to break up the concept of ethnic groups altogether... make people just 'citizen of the world', where people aren't part of a subculture or subgroup of any kind. And although that would solve a lot of problems, and it might create that united earth which people think is a goal of humanity, it's just not gonna work.

 

We could remove the language barrier, but people will find another reason to identify themselves with a group. In the future, that may not be nationality, religion or language... there will be something else.

 

We're group animals. Being part of a group makes us feel comfortable. And I don't think that people will feel comfortable being part of a herd so big that it is global. At least, not yet.

People are already and always have been "citizens of the world." Who says groupism under various identities, ethnic and otherwise, isn't just another part of global citizenship? I think it's a question of consciousness with regard to self and others. Groupism/ethnicism is not so much about belonging as it is about avoiding social exclusion/isolation. No one wants to be isolated, so they learn to avoid association with those that are. Thus I wonder if what you are meaning to say is that humans are hate/fear animals and everyone needs some "other category" to fear, hate, and dissociate from. I consider that view sad, but it is not entirely unfounded since in practice many many humans behave in this way.

 

"Subcultures" and "Culture," when used as container concepts obscure the basic fact that there is global cultural diversity that extends to the most local level and to the individual level. Each individual has a unique collection of cultural experiences and abilities. The question is why people can't just focus on living and practicing their individual culture as they've acquired it instead of focussing on identifying themselves culturally in terms of relative similarities and differences with others. It's as if people think the point of acquiring culture is not to use it but to showcase it and form social relationships based on cultural identity. This is like saying, "I have a hammer and you have a hammer but instead of using them to build stuff, let's just hang out and have a hammer-guy club and be leisurely." To me, the point of culture is to use it.

 

 

 

[Marat]

The reason we can't all just focus on our own cultural experience of any environment is that we have strong opinions about what our neighbors, our governments, and our democratic societies decide to do, and this forces us to insist on some cultural uniformity in our local environment to reduce conflicts. If I saw women who had cheated on their husbands being stoned every day in the field next to my house as I was heading off to work, I couldn't just say to myself, "Oh well, tastes differ; I might not want to organize society this way, but I recognize that I am living now in a multicultural community so I must try to be tolerant." It's because people cannot be that tolerant that they subdivide into cultural groups separated by national boundaries.

[lemur]

The reason we can't all just focus on our own cultural experience of any environment is that we have strong opinions about what our neighbors, our governments, and our democratic societies decide to do, and this forces us to insist on some cultural uniformity in our local environment to reduce conflicts. If I saw women who had cheated on their husbands being stoned every day in the field next to my house as I was heading off to work, I couldn't just say to myself, "Oh well, tastes differ; I might not want to organize society this way, but I recognize that I am living now in a multicultural community so I must try to be tolerant." It's because people cannot be that tolerant that they subdivide into cultural groups separated by national boundaries.

Maybe, but that doesn't really account for why elaborate mythologies of ethnic cultural imperativism circulate that prescribe all people with the same national ethnicity should think and do things in similar ways. That is what I would call "monoculturalism" at the level of ethnic sameness. E.g. Everyone who speaks some language could be free to develop their own individual culture by drawing on various resources instead of conforming to mythologies about "this is how we do this in my country." So I don't think the problem with tolerance is that there are certain cultures that don't fit together. It is that there are cultures of anti-difference that prescribe conformity by narrativizing ethnic identity and culture in complex ways along with informal social sanctions for people who resist conformity. Put simply, this is just conformity culture, but it is couched in the logic of ethnic monocultural imperativism - and that is the source of intolerance; not cultural difference itself.

[michel123456]

It is an error to believe that the limit of a territory can coincide with the limit of ethnicity. A territory limit is permeable, you will find mixed ethnicities on both parts of the border. If you want to make the 2 limits coincide you must use coercitive methods and build a wall. That is IMHO a very bad way of proceeding.

[lemur]

It is an error to believe that the limit of a territory can coincide with the limit of ethnicity. A territory limit is permeable, you will find mixed ethnicities on both parts of the border. If you want to make the 2 limits coincide you must use coercitive methods and build a wall. That is IMHO a very bad way of proceeding.

Are you saying that territorial inclusion doesn't constitute a form of ethnic bond in and of itself? Ideally, I would agree with you that territories should be regulated from a perspective of ethnic neutrality. However, I'm not sure how possible that is where language, for example, is informally claimed as belonging more naturally to certain citizens because of their ethno-racial identity. E.g. if a certain territory hosts the use of a certain language, one ethnic group is likely to identify the language as ethnic property and ethnic others will be treated as non-natural speakers of the language; their dialects and expression will be treated as incorrect usage, etc. So, yes, ideally a territory could be regulated in a way that all speakers of the same language respect each other's equal legitimacy in using the common language, but it can be very difficult to get people to overcome sub-conscious assumptions of ethnic naturalism and the privileging of some dialects or ways of speaking over others (e.g. how do you remove status-differentiation between "native" and "non-native" speaker where some people have been speaking the language for a year while others have been speaking it for 20? Ideally, you would think that naturalization would ascribe people the same status as birth-right in terms of citizenship, but nationalism is usually ethnicized to the point the birth appears to be a more natural method of acquiring citizenship than naturalization.

Edited March 26, 2011 by lemur

[michel123456]

It is a terribly complicated question.

Ethnicity does not mean same language, Nation does not mean ethnicity nor language. Religion is different too, and nationality. All those concepts are different.

 

For example, I am Belgian. You must know that 2 languages are spoken in Belgium and that is the obvious reason why the country is close to be cut in pieces (not speaking about the hidden reasons, off topic). But the limit between the 2 regions does not coincide with the language spoken in it, there are a lot of people speaking one language inside the limit of the other. Cutting is not easy.

In order to make people agree with the split of the country in two, some are building a new "ethnicity" based on existing (and exact) documents based on history. In other words, it will happen tomorrow that I am not a Belgian anymore, but a Flemish or a Walloon. The same way as a Chekoslovian is now either a Czechian or a Slovakian.

So yes, territorial inclusion constitute a form of ethnic bond, but not naturaly: it is made on purpose by politicians in order to make the territorial boundary solid. When the boundary is not suitable any more everything can change.

 

About 2 centuries ago, the contrary happened in Europe: Lombardesians and Napolitans became Italians, Bavaroisians and Berliners became Germans, Bretons and Corses became French. Neither they spoke the same language then.

Edited March 26, 2011 by michel123456

[lemur]

It is a terribly complicated question.

Ethnicity does not mean same language, Nation does not mean ethnicity nor language. Religion is different too, and nationality. All those concepts are different.

 

For example, I am Belgian. You must know that 2 languages are spoken in Belgium and that is the obvious reason why the country is close to be cut in pieces (not speaking about the hidden reasons, off topic). But the limit between the 2 regions does not coincide with the language spoken in it, there are a lot of people speaking one language inside the limit of the other. Cutting is not easy.

In order to make people agree with the split of the country in two, some are building a new "ethnicity" based on existing (and exact) documents based on history. In other words, it will happen tomorrow that I am not a Belgian anymore, but a Flemish or a Walloon. The same way as a Chekoslovian is now either a Czechian or a Slovakian.

So yes, territorial inclusion constitute a form of ethnic bond, but not naturaly: it is made on purpose by politicians in order to make the territorial boundary solid. When the boundary is not suitable any more everything can change.

 

About 2 centuries ago, the contrary happened in Europe: Lombardesians and Napolitans became Italians, Bavaroisians and Berliners became Germans, Bretons and Corses became French. Neither they spoke the same language then.

I would say you're Beneluxian to the extent that all other Beneluxians would probably unify with you in rejecting that title;) Seriously, though, I try to cut through all the mundane subjective views about what ethnicity means to arrive at a sufficiently general definition to apply to all such phenomena for any human individual. In this sense, I think ethnicity generally refers to any form of cultural identification, whether collectivism/groupism is assumed or not. So, for example, "Wallonian" is an ethnicity to the extent that various cultural practices are identified as "Wallonian" as is "Catholic" or "my personal style of doing laundry." You probably will say this definition is too broad, but why should ethnicity only refer to cultural practices that are engaged in by multiple people? If you would erase an individual's memory and put them in a forest (and if they didn't die), they would develop their own individual cultural practices for living and communicating with themselves, etc. From this level of generality in definition, you can proceed to doing a less biased analysis of what ethnicity is and how it relates to groupism/collectivism, regional territorialism, etc.

 

National territorial discourses are just one facet of constructing one form of ethnicity. A global government could be created tomorrow that eliminates all national institutions and churches, language, and other cultural identities could still function in individuals' processes of ethnic-identity and cultural learning/practice.