Fuc^ing hell...

[Shpira]

Discuss whether a coherent national identity can exist within nation states that contain larger ethnic minority groups. Should it be a cause for concern if a coherent national identity cannot exist in ethnically diverse nation states?

Just wanted to share the title of my private piece of hell in for tomorrow!

[KinKyJ]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Ouch, considering your roots that's a friggin' minefield. It's got Kosova all over it...

[Shpira]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

^^^ don't you worry my good Albanian friend...I am a long time student of the exact science of politics and i can swim with the sharkies quite well by now...so i don't tend to fall into the nationalism traps...
....but I will publish my masterpiece here tomorrow so you can give it a quick read if you wish...

[KinKyJ]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

My girl is Albo, I'm Belgian

Looking fwd to reading it, yeah. Finally something else than bs about Iraq/Iran and US politics.

[Shpira]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Oh ok fair enough sorry...I thought you were one of us racially/nationally handicapped
lucky you!

[Yao]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Where is it bro...interested in reading it as I'm an African Studies student...enthicity concept is very alive for me

[Shpira]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Discuss whether a coherent national identity can exist within nation states that contain larger ethnic minority groups. Should it be a cause for concern if a coherent national identity cannot exist in ethnically diverse nation states?

In order to address the question at hand we must first truly understand and clarify the main actor i.e. nation. A nation is [1]“…a social collectivity, the members of which share some of the following: a sense of common identity, a history, a language, ethnic or racial origins, religion, a common economic life, a geographical location and a political base.”

Therefore if there is no common/national identity there is quite possibly no nation, as one of the important elements is missing.
National identity could be described in a similar way as the nation itself, as national identity is made up of characteristics shared by the “social collectivity”.
States as the main actors in international relations are most often defined using the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933) according to which states must have the following qualifications: “a permanent population, a defined territory and a government who is capable of maintaining effective control over its territory and of conducting international relations with other states”.

A problem arises when a state has large ethnic minority groups as they may often feel disassociated as they share very little “national identity” with the state they are in and this causes certain concerns such as lack of loyalty (it may be felt that they are loyal to their mother states rather than the current state they reside in) and legality (should they be forced to abandon their customs and assimilate or allowed to keep customs at the risk of loyalty and racial tension) to come up. Further more if the ethnic groups are allowed to keep their national identity a state may end up torn apart between the different ethnic groups as no single group may be large enough to claim statehood. For any nation to function effectively the majority of the members of that state i.e. the citizens must support the government in order to give it legitimacy e.g. recently there have been many discussions on the single issue of traditional Muslim head scarf’s, chief justice Ahmed (first Muslim chief justice in UK) claims that head scarf’s are creating an unwanted barrier between those who wear them and the non Muslim population. This is an example of minority groups refusing to change customs and as a result are in a way forced to do so by the state i.e. the courts.

Therefore ethnic minorities could be a possible problem for the coherent national identity; however migration on large scale has only been taking place in the last 100 or so years so these issues have not yet shown their true implications. This is an ongoing experiment designed to test the future of nation states in their traditional form. The EU can be seen as a guide for potential solutions i.e. supranational governments in which there is little or no room for nationalist ideas.
If there is NO national identity in a singled out nation (not in a supranational organization) then that may cause a serious problem such as the end of the nation (unless all citizens are highly politically educated). Citizens must have a feeling of nationality in order to support the govt in both direct and indirect ways, for if they all refuse to pay taxes for an example or just all refuse obedience to the govt of the state would be non existent.

National self-determination is one of the main issue’s that need be considered, if a coherent national identity of some kind does not exist in a state, as ethnic minorities/groups can attempt a claim of independence on its basis.
The Ideas behind national self-determination are that basically each group of people, which inhabit a space of land with a culture and tradition of their own, can freely choose their political status and develop as a separate nation. This was set out in the 1960’s General Assembly Declaration:”[2]…’all peoples have the right to national self-determination’ and thus membership of international society but also ‘the further continuation of colonialism…is a crime which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations’.”

National self determination first appeared at the turn of the 19th century; the president of the United States included it in as one of his 14 points which were meant to prevent future wars, it was also mentioned in the rival idea presented by Marx and Engel. However, unlike Wilson, Marx recognised:[3]”…that capitalist internationalism would be followed by…nationalism and greater likelihood of systematic war”, this idea was later adopted and edited by Lenin to a certain extent. Essentially it means that through self determination of nations, wars are an inevitable occurrence as factions and ethnic groups will fight for disputed land and resources as [4]“…the characteristic of principle of nationalism is ‘national self-determination’.”

Therefore it has recently been recognised that self-determination should not play such a vital role in the creation of new nations as it will more likely than not cause conflict and instability: “[5]In the early 1990’s, perhaps for the first time, rational observers irrespective of politics…began publicly to propose the abandonment of ‘the right to self-determination’.” This was directly seen in the break up of Yugoslavia, where each of the states of the former nation fought against one another in a bloody war which caused a great instability in the region and the eventual disintegration of the nation, effects of which are still felt today.
When studying recent history it becomes clear that goals of independence are far more complex than first set out in the UN charter or later in Wilson’s 14 points. Fragmentation and civil war of current nations becomes a grim possibility as there are many more nations than states. There are furthermore nationalities scattered across sovereign states such as the Kurds or the Basques. These cases pose a difficult problem and a threat for nations to resolve especially with the increase in militancy (terrorism) of these ethnic minorities within nations.

Even within politically stable nations there are always issues which endanger the national identity; nationhood against statehood is an issue which can be associated with many of today’s mayor countries. In Britain there are issue’s such as England vs. Scotland i.e. northerners against the southerners and in Germany there is a large mentality difference between those in the south and those in the north…the southerners are perceived as boring while the north is crazy i.e. too progressive and anti-traditional. This however is not seen as a serious cause for concern as over time those member states e.g. Bavaria, England have learned to work in the national interest rather than state i.e. Germanys and Great Britain’s.
It is important that the nation lives inside the mind of its citizens. For them to feel they belong as a part of it and it as a part of them. The nation is an imagined community as most of its citizens do not know one another and have most likely never seen one another as such it is important for all of its citizens to feel a loyalty towards the nation in order to function as an effective community. This is achieved through the use of traditions and set practices which reaffirm the sovereignty of the nation.

The issue of fragmentation however does have the potential become worse as minorities enter countries at a higher rate due to better transport and globalization enters homes, worldwide governments will face a problem. Although ethnic minorities are forced by the government of the nation they reside in to follow the law they are not forced to change traditions and cultural/moral values and a high number of ethnic minorities who have failed to assimilate/adapt and choose to keep their cultural values could cause a loss of national identity to a certain degree:[6]”…the more globalization intensifies, the fiercer will be the pockets of resistance to its intrusive sway.” It can be furthermore argued with some conviction that globalization is the tool of nationalism:[7]”Giddens sees nationalism as being promoted by…globalization. Technology links up all parts of the globe and compresses time and space, but at the same time unleashes…forces of opposition to this process…nationalism is a significant force resisting globalization but being pulled by its wake.”

This would seem contradictory as Globalisation is often seen (theoretically) as the force ridding the world of cultural differences and promoting unity for prosperity. The reality is somewhat more complex [8]“…increasingly global nature of economic and cultural activity has promoted supranational political initiatives such as the EU, but it has also inspired cultural resistance to globalism, which has entrenched nationalist politics in Britain just as it has in Iraq.” Although people of different ethnic backgrounds [9]“…are often set in the same states and intermingle in countless ways; these things render the prospect of exemplifying a single national identity implausible in the extreme.” Therefore in practice there is little need for nationalism as global capitalism is at work and arguably states of people do not have a rational need for a nation or wishing a nation of their own as they more likely than not have the exact same rights as they would in their own nation and in addition they have many benefits of a larger state e.g. being part of the E.U., having a stronger economy or having a larger military force.

Essentially large minority groups in a nation do not necessarily signal the end of a coherent national identity. Just as states can function together as a coherent nation so can ethnic minorities as citizens in a state. However they must accept the sovereign rule of the nation and attempt to accept the values and the identity of the nation they live in. They must in a way give their loyalty to the nation they reside in rather than to the nation that they ethnically belong to. This is not always the case and in these cases the govt of the nation may have a possible cause for concern as it may face instability of some kind as these minorities will most likely attempt to promote their own national interests and in more extreme cases even civil wars are possible.
It is has become increasingly recognised by academics world wide that the face of globalization will also be followed by fragmentation as a contradictory bi-product of globalization itself which will lead to both shrinking and increasing the gap between nations and states:[10]”…future politics will be shaped by the contradictory, but interrelated, forces of globalization and fragmentation.”
There are many examples of nation-states functioning in unity and with a kind of coherent national identity even though they have large ethnic minority groups, the prime example of this would be the US. The United States have more than 200 million people living there and most of them are of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds but they all unite behind the ideas that bind them all i.e. national interests such as anti terrorism, wars, taxes and freedom. Further more America as a quite young nation-state, with practically no native population (the red Indians are very few in numbers and even less in power), has very little real identifiable national identity; however for these reasons the so called national identity is constantly reaffirmed through the use of flags symbols, national anthems (pledging allegiance to the flag). This is seen as necessary in order for the state to function effectively even though in reality different parts of the US are extremely different from one another in tradition, culture and politics.
So it is perhaps more difficult for a state to function with a minority population but it is not impossible and as for national identity it is extremely important for a nation-state to reaffirm if it wishes to maintain power.

Word count 1985

Bibliography

- Ian Clark (2002), Globalization and Fragmentation, OUP
- Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning, Richard Huggins, Ben Rosamond (2002),an introduction to Politics, Routledge
- Eric Hobsbawm (1999), Age of the Extremes, The Short Twentieth century 1914-1991, Abacus
- Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak, Andrew Linklater, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit and Jacqui True (2001), Theories of International Relations, Palgrave
- Baylis and Smith (1999), The Globalization of World Politics, OUP
- Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham (199,the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, Penguin Reference Books
- K.J. Holsti (1995), International Politics, Pearson Education

The master piece...

[Yao]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

copied and pasted it, will give it a read later today ;-)

[KinKyJ]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

same here...

[Miguel]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

you mak some good points ... let me ask you ... ina country like US .. where imigrant groups grow larger by the day .. do you think this minorities will be able to reach a point in which they will rise against ( or at least an attempt to ) the government ?

[thesightless]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

no, actually ill go as far to say never. ask the immigrAnts to the US. i.e. peloquin and others. frankly, as much as the lib whino's cry about things like the patriot act and phone surveillance, it isnt nearly as bad as anyone says, and frankly, outside of legal drugs and socialised medicine, this place is the leader in social and economic freedoms. and in the end, even with the people who i speak to, we are all just americans. and this incorporates people from pakistan, aghanistan, india, china, japan, korea, south america, europe... once you're here, you realize, no one cares where you are from. just dont push unwanted beleifs and dont impede my life and you are fine. its the idiots who get the ire.

[KinKyJ]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

^^^ social freedoms? LMAO, like what???

And nobody in the US cares where you from because there are only two countries in the American mind: the US and the rest.

[Yao]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Social freedoms my ass, you're free as long as you're a lover of the free market and don't care about other people, AND as long as you know how to suck the hardline Christian's dicks. You are alright Sean, but I see a totally different American than you I guess...

[Shpira]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

Yeah but why do you think the US gets such a hard on for their flag??? No other country not even Britain (a country that once had the largest empire) has such a fanatical devotion to its flag! Its because America is made up of immigrants who have absolutely nothing in common and this idea that America has given something to them is all bullshit...you see these young Mexicans and Portoricans fighting in Iraq because America has given so much to them...bullshit...I really didn't want to get into this and I knew that this would end up in some sort of argument about the US...I don't really have a grudge against any country in particular it just pisses me of how the US is soooooooo fucking patriotic...but tell me this whats the difference between that so called patriotism and nationalism???
The US now days has all the fucking trademarks of an empire...
P.S. the US may have social freedoms compared to places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and N.Korea but compared to Europe...no...none really.

[thesightless]

Re: Fuc^ing hell...

thats too bad for the both of you then. here, no one cares. its that simple. the non US world only sees things like the anti-immigration news, hardline vocal people with asinine opinions, and stupid politics. most people here, are simply american, and couldnt give a shit. it isnt US and everyone else. maybe because your anti american media says so, but that is hardly the truth. for every GW2 and pat robertson, there are a few million people just the opposite.

and im sick of the point, so say it jan, what social freedoms dont we have outside of drugs and medical?

and last time i looked, it was europe who was pondering things like immigration quotas to certain countries, britian has the most intense civilian surveillance on the planet, more racial tension than here....