Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[XXSockXX]

The funny thing is that I've discovered if you divide countries up into "nations" you will discover most of them are blocks of about 5 million people or thereabouts, or the equivalent if that in proportion to a very big country. It's a pattern.

Now that is nonsense, really. There are many nations much bigger than 5 million. Just because there are sub-national identities doesn't mean they overrule the national identity.

Also I think you're underestimating linguistic differences, where I live there are even tiny differences between dialects in towns a few kilometers apart.
Then you're underestimating other nation-building factors besides language, like common culture and common heritage/fate/history (the German word Schicksalsgemeinschaft sounds a bit martial, but fits), stuff like geographical/historical/religious divisions etc.

If a country says it's a country, is reasonably big enough, has control over its land/assets and functions as a political power, I'd say it's a separate country in its own right. If there are separate countries within that, then its individual ambitions are overruled by the majority...the majority being the country.

A country is not a nation or vice versa. There are plenty of nations that have no country of their own, and there are plenty of countries that aren't nations (like pretty much all former colonies).

[aenri]

Might makes right. That's the gist of country making. Anywhere the ruling elite had enough power to create their own country, they did. A nation (or a sense of unity) can ease the population into accepting the country, but isn't required component of country building. Country is a well defined entity, which is defined by its system of governance, borders and population.

[miauw62]

Owlbread, what you, and a lot of peoples alongside, are missing is that originally most peoples spoke a dialect that had a reach of a few villages tops. What they speak when they had to speak with peoples from farther away was a different language.  I know for a fact that walloon from Liege and from Charleroi didn't understand each other. There is no "natural linguistic boundaries".

This is equally true for Flanders, good luck getting somebody from Bruges and somebody from Hasselt to understand each other

[Sergarr]

Might makes right. That's the gist of country making. Anywhere the ruling elite had enough power to create their own country, they did. A nation (or a sense of unity) can ease the population into accepting the country, but isn't required component of country building. Country is a well defined entity, which is defined by its system of governance, borders and population.

Countries with a strong nation in their core have a tendency to completely overwhelm the countries without one in all ways possible.

That's what history showed us many times.

[Owlbread]

But then you get different atoms if you cut different ways - well-defined that ain't.
Maybe you should stop and think about what you are doing: You have a goal that you want to achieve, a position you want to promote, and now you're thinking up linguistic arguments to attain legitimacy, justification for your ideas.
I'd suggest you start with the arguments and see where they take you instead. It'll lead to fewer contradictions - and you'll like the results you'll get better than the nebulous notions you espouse right now.

This is good advice.

At the moment I'm just putting my thoughts out there, acknowledging difficulties I face when they come to me. I'm not going to go into government or become a policy maker so I'm not worried about getting things wrong, nor am I claiming that everything I say as gospel. I just know that out of these discussions my views will be tempered and strengthened or readjusted.

Now that is nonsense, really. There are many nations much bigger than 5 million.

When I've been looking at "nations" and things that I might potentially consider to be a nation, it's very rare that I would find one that's much bigger than the 5 million sweet spot. England would be one; numbering at around 50 million or something. Poland wouldn't be far behind; even sans Silesia and Kashuba you're looking at 30 million+. Occitania might be another, numbering at 15 million. Castile would be about 10 million +, so would France. Bavaria is also pretty huge when you add in the rest of Bavaria which may currently be a part of Austria, so that would be potentially 20 million. That said, it's far more common to find things like Brittany (4 million or so), Normandy (3.5 million or so), Scotland (5 million or so), Ireland (6 million), Wales (3 million), Wallonia (3.5 million), Catalonia (7 million), Valencia (5 million), Galicia (nearly 3 million), Andalusia (8 million), Basque Country (about 3 million), Arpitania (unclear, judging by Romandie + the rest probably 3 million), Frisia (potentially 3 million judging by what I've seen), Alemannia (about 7 million, counting the so-called Swiss Germans and Baden), Lower Saxony (about 7 million, even including parts of the Netherlands), Franconia (about 3 million +), Venice (4.5 million).

I'm somewhat concerned by the bloody enormous size of England in this model. England would end up being one of the biggest countries in all of Europe; this is where federations come in handy. Russia would be pretty enormous though.

From what I can tell, under this model the biggest countries in Europe would be England (50 million), Ukraine (45 million), Poland (35 million +)... I can't even tell how big Turkey and Russia would be. Turkey would certainly be very big, potentially a rival to Russia because even without the Kurds you're looking at 70 million +. Germany seems like it should have some kind of enormous nation lurking within it but I can't actually find it. It's as if everything is beautifully even and spread out across the states. Why is Germany so good at everything? Even population spread. Damn. Then again, looking at Italy, we've got something similar going on there too.

Just because there are sub-national identities doesn't mean they overrule the national identity.

I would argue that most overall "national identities", which could be described as meta-identities, like Spanish, British and German may actually be counter productive. I am on the verge of not considering them "real" or legitimate; that they just get in the way of the realisation of the potential of the nations within them. Obviously I'm not going to impose this on someone as I'm not some kind of military commander ploughing through their territories, everyone is welcome to have complex national identities of their own which can include these things; I'm just talking about how I see things.

Also I think you're underestimating linguistic differences, where I live there are even tiny differences between dialects in towns a few kilometers apart.

I know this, it was once the case in Scotland. That said, I do not consider dialectal differences to be sufficient to prevent nationhood. Most linguistic nations are just collections of dialects within one family.

Then you're underestimating other nation-building factors besides language, like common culture and common heritage/fate/history (the German word Schicksalsgemeinschaft sounds a bit martial, but fits), stuff like geographical/historical/religious divisions etc.

Originally I was deliberately getting rid of those in a bid to reassess how Europe might end up looking. As I said earlier however, that's how "Scotland" is united as one country. This is one of the problems I have. At the moment I'd prefer to keep religion/history out of things and focus on linguistic divisions and see where that takes me, as Helgoland recommended, rather than trying to build a strategy around what I want.

A country is not a nation or vice versa. There are plenty of nations that have no country of their own, and there are plenty of countries that aren't nations (like pretty much all former colonies).

This is where things get problematic. The definitions of "nations" and "countries" are incredibly problematic. I tend to define nations and countries as one and the same. Anything else is purely political i.e. states.

[Dutchling]

Owlbread, I feel like you're hanging out with separatists a wee bit too much if you seriously think splitting up the Netherlands is a sane idea.

PSA: the people you hang out with are not representative of the countries that they want to have independent.

[XXSockXX]

Bavaria is also pretty huge when you add in the rest of Bavaria which may currently be a part of Austria, so that would be potentially 20 million.
[...]
Frisia (potentially 3 million judging by what I've seen), Alemannia (about 7 million, counting the so-called Swiss Germans and Baden), Lower Saxony (about 7 million, even including parts of the Netherlands), Franconia (about 3 million +).

Dude, Austrians would be very offended by being lumped together with Bavaria. Just because they speak mostly dialects of the Bavarian branch of High German does in no way make them Bavarian. Also the state of Bavaria has speakers of other dialect groups too.

German and Dutch form a dialect continuum (that includes separate languages, ie Dutch and German), so neighbouring dialects can be mutually understandable, but the more distant they are, the more different they become. That is very obvious if you have a look at a map of Franconian dialects. I assume Helgoland and I for example are both speakers of a Franconian dialect, but if we talked to each other in our respective dialects, we would barely understand each other, let alone if we talked to a Dutch speaker of a Franconian dialect.
Then there are some dialects of Highest Alemannic (in Switzerland), that are not mutually understandable at all, despite being spoken in neighbouring but somewhat isolated valleys and all belonging to the same sub-branch of Alemannic.
Point is, linguistics alone doesn't make a nation.

The definitions of "nations" and "countries" are incredibly problematic. I tend to define nations and countries as one and the same. Anything else is purely political i.e. states.

Yes they are incredibly problematic terms. However they can't be the same, look at the Kurds for example. You can argue that they form a nation, but not only do they not currently have a country, you couldn't even create one that includes all of the isolated areas they live in, just one that roughly includes parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey, but then it starts getting problematic. On the other hand you have Switzerland, which is a country and certainly has a strong national identity, but several languages. That is why stuff like geography, history, religion, politics, culture and such do matter a lot in nation-forming. That doesn't necessarily mean that some nations shouldn't be independent, but it does explain how nations come to exist in the first place and why some form states and others don't.

I think you're too much thinking from what you know first-hand: Scotland, an incredibly easy case when separatism is concerned.
Some of your other ideas sound like coming up when looking at a cultural map in a Paradox game, and I really mean no offense by that, just saying, they don't seem to properly reflect the reality of the national identities you're talking about.

[Helgoland]

Sock, I'm flattered, but sadly I do not speak Kölsch. My parents immigrated to the Rhineland, after all.
An example of the dialect continuum in action: My mom comes from the Südoldenburger Münsterland, the southernmost part of Lower Saxony. The Platt they speak there is even less intelligible than Bairisch or Dutch to an outsider - I can understand maybe two thirds of what's being said. My mom speaks it perfectly, though. She used to be sad that it was dying out, but now she says she's happy to see it live on in Dutch. But the people of the region would probably take up arms if the Netherlands tried to annex them - they are very much German and see themselves that way too. Plus the damn Dutch and their terrible driving keep blocking the Autobahn

It would've worked if the regions had been joined some centuries ago, before there was a distinction between the Netherlands and Germany - for example as part of a Hanse-turned-state. Nowadays it's just daydreaming.

[Owlbread]

Spoiler: Enormous post in reply to the comments above (click to show/hide)

Dude, Austrians would be very offended by being lumped together with Bavaria. Just because they speak mostly dialects of the Bavarian branch of High German does in no way make them Bavarian.

It's a good thing I don't plan on forcing this on them in that case.

Also the state of Bavaria has speakers of other dialect groups too.

Yes, I was actually taking those into account according to the model. Even without those dialect groups Bavaria would still have roughly 20 million if they were lumped in together with the Austrians.

German and Dutch form a dialect continuum (that includes separate languages, ie Dutch and German), so neighbouring dialects can be mutually understandable, but the more distant they are, the more different they become. That is very obvious if you have a look at a map of Franconian dialects. I assume Helgoland and I for example are both speakers of a Franconian dialect, but if we talked to each other in our respective dialects, we would barely understand each other, let alone if we talked to a Dutch speaker of a Franconian dialect.
Then there are some dialects of Highest Alemannic (in Switzerland), that are not mutually understandable at all, despite being spoken in neighbouring but somewhat isolated valleys and all belonging to the same sub-branch of Alemannic.
Point is, linguistics alone doesn't make a nation.

As a point of consideration - despite the fact that the dialects of Arabic can vary so much between countries, various pan-Arab movements have even successfully united them such as the Arab Federation between Syria and Egypt. They may have different dialects, but they still considered eachother to be Arabs. You see, I can imagine a nation of Franconia where someone in one end of the country would not have a clue what the person on the other end of the country is saying. This happens in the UK.

Yes they are incredibly problematic terms. However they can't be the same, look at the Kurds for example. You can argue that they form a nation, but not only do they not currently have a country, you couldn't even create one that includes all of the isolated areas they live in, just one that roughly includes parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey, but then it starts getting problematic.

I would argue that the Kurdish nation would roughly constitute a country, just one that is currently occupied and split across several other states.

On the other hand you have Switzerland, which is a country and certainly has a strong national identity, but several languages. That is why stuff like geography, history, religion, politics, culture and such do matter a lot in nation-forming. That doesn't necessarily mean that some nations shouldn't be independent, but it does explain how nations come to exist in the first place and why some form states and others don't.

This is very important. It's according to this model that you're describing that Scotland can be defined as a country.

I think you're too much thinking from what you know first-hand: Scotland, an incredibly easy case when separatism is concerned.

Scotland is actually very problematic in this linguistic model though. As I said earlier, it may mean that I would end up separating the Lowlands and putting them in England or something bizarre. Or giving Kosovo to Albania, or killing Liechtenstein. I don't want Liechtensteiners' blood on my hands. It's like killing the geopolitical equivalent of a fluffy wambler.

Some of your other ideas sound like coming up when looking at a cultural map in a Paradox game, and I really mean no offense by that, just saying, they don't seem to properly reflect the reality of the national identities you're talking about.

I know this, but perhaps I haven't made it clear that I don't believe that the majority of the people in these lands (or even a significant minority) actually see their linguistic identity as a national one. If any do it's a miracle. I'm just trying to take a linguistic approach to nationalism as an exercise and trying to see where that takes me. It works beautifully in Spain at least but not so well elsewhere.

Owlbread, I feel like you're hanging out with separatists a wee bit too much if you seriously think splitting up the Netherlands is a sane idea.

PSA: the people you hang out with are not representative of the countries that they want to have independent.

I don't actually hang out with any separatists, apart from Scottish ones who wouldn't know an Arpitan from an Occitan. This is all in my head. I haven't met a Lower Franconian separatist yet, as much as I would like to. But I don't actually think "splitting up the Netherlands" is sane; I'd just recommend stuff like splitting off Frisia and uniting it with the rest of Frisia. That's not splitting up the Netherlands, you see. Or wait... maybe it is... because isn't the reason why Dutch people get offended if you call them Holland because the term "Netherlands" (Low Countries) encompasses the diversity of the peoples within that area? A bit like how Scots get annoyed if you call them English?

Sock, I'm flattered, but sadly I do not speak Kölsch. My parents immigrated to the Rhineland, after all.
An example of the dialect continuum in action: My mom comes from the Südoldenburger Münsterland, the southernmost part of Lower Saxony. The Platt they speak there is even less intelligible than Bairisch or Dutch to an outsider - I can understand maybe two thirds of what's being said. My mom speaks it perfectly, though. She used to be sad that it was dying out, but now she says she's happy to see it live on in Dutch. But the people of the region would probably take up arms if the Netherlands tried to annex them - they are very much German and see themselves that way too. Plus the damn Dutch and their terrible driving keep blocking the Autobahn

It would've worked if the regions had been joined some centuries ago, before there was a distinction between the Netherlands and Germany - for example as part of a Hanse-turned-state. Nowadays it's just daydreaming.

As a point of note - I would not advocate the annexation of Lower Saxony into the Netherlands. I would be far more likely to advocate its national independence as a separate state, annexing land within the Netherlands. But... the "Saxon" bit is confusing. Does this mean that Lower Saxony would need to be united with Saxony Anhalt and "Saxony" in the East, creating some kind of grand Saxon superstate? Surely not. There seems to be virtually no connection between Upper Saxon and Lower Saxon other than that the original speakers were from Lower Saxony.

I suppose most of it can go to Lusatia anyway:

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Owlbread,

Lets imagine we divided the world in a perfect way with a lot of ~5mln nations. I think the next step is to ban any migration, right? Because else ethnic map will be screwed in few decades and we will need to redraw borders again

[Owlbread]

Owlbread,

Lets imagine we divided the world in a perfect way with a lot of ~5mln nations. I think the next step is to ban any migration, right? Because else ethnic map will be screwed in few decades and we will need to redraw borders again

Well, actually, it would be fine as long as the state governments still spoke Andalusian or Franconian or Neapolitan or Tuscan or something. The migration would never be bad enough that you'd need to completely change the state languages. I mean, according to the model I'm thinking of, "Franconia" would probably have the standard register of High German as a state language alongside Franconian. Just like Scotland would end up with English as a state language alongside Scots and Gaelic - despite the fact that English is not really native to this country in the same way as the other two. It's the same as French in Occitania.

[Helgoland]

The Saxons were all over the place back in the day. The people we call Saxons today live in the east - their dialect is basically a shorthand for Ossi as far as our meia are concerned - in the Bundesländer Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt (I'd almost have written Saxony-Stop ). Lower Saxony is just the big north-western part of Germany, encompassing large parts of the North German Plain. It's just a name, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or language.

[Owlbread]

The Saxons were all over the place back in the day. The people we call Saxons today live in the east - their dialect is basically a shorthand for Ossi as far as our meia are concerned - in the Bundesländer Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt (I'd almost have written Saxony-Stop ). Lower Saxony is just the big north-western part of Germany, encompassing large parts of the North German Plain. It's just a name, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or language.

My understanding was that the Saxons spread from North-West Germany (Lower Saxony, which is the original saxony) to the East, taking land from the Slavs as they went. Is that totally incorrect?

[Sergarr]

The migration would never be bad enough that you'd need to completely change the state languages.

Latin is a dead language because of migration, though. So no, this would be false.

[Owlbread]

Latin is a dead language because of migration, though. So no, this would be false.

Gaelic is also nearly dead because of migration, but Gaelic never had state protection. Latin didn't really die though - it just evolved into new languages.