|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 9, 2015 12:33:52 GMT 5.5
The following is from Nation, state and minority in modern Europe in Ethnic Diversity and the Nation State: National cultural autonomy revisited (Routledge, 2012) by David J. Smith and John Hiden. Indeed, when considering central and Eastern Europe, League [League of Nations] representatives sigalled their clear commitment to building indivisibly sovereign, one-community nation states on the Western European model. Any suggestion of creating autonomous national minority institutions as an intermediary between state and individual was seen as conducive to creating states within states and fuelling irredentism. The mode limited, individually based rights adopted by the League were thus seen as little more than a temporary expedient, which would prepare national minorities for eventual merger into the dominant societal culture of the state in which they lived.18
While acknowledging the need to work within the territorial frontiers, established in 1919-1923, the founding fathers of the Nationalities Congress [Congress of European Nationalities] nevertheless saw the one-community nation state model as fundamentally ill-suited to the ethnically complex environment of central and Eastern Europe. With different ethnicities thoroughly intermingled, any attempt to assert exclusive ownership by a particular group over territory would necessarily generate huge discontent. The only solution was to move towards an understanding of the state as a shared territorial space occuped by different ethnic groups, all of which had fundamental interest in the welfare of their common homeland. In keeping with this, Congress leaders concevied of the cultural nation (Kulturnation) as a collectivity of persons, voluntarily united in the form of a corporation t public law. Such public-legal status would act as a foundation for the establishment of cultural self-governments. These would have jurisdiction over native-language schooling across the territory of the given state, as well as dealing with cultural maters of specific concern to the minority community. 18. See, for instance, the discussion in B. Schot, Nation oder Staat. Deutschland und der Minderheitenschutz, Marburg: Johann-Gottfried Herder Institut, 1988, pp. 16-17.I thought this would be an interesting read in the ethno-political context of Manipur. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 9, 2015 15:32:56 GMT 5.5
In the chapter Voice in the wilderness?, David J. Smith and John Hiden write (annotations added by me): As the key thinkers of Austrian social democracy, Renner and Bauer vigorously attacked the essentialist, 'petty bourgeois' claim that nations and ethnic groups were natural and primordial entities with their own unique spirit. At the same time, they dismissed the 'naive cosmopolitanism' of orthodox Marxists, who saw national identity as entirely contingent on capitalism and thus inexorably set to disappear once a socialist order had been achieved.3 For Renner and Bauer, nations were substantive historical and social constructs, 'communities of character' born out of constant reciprocal interaction between those subject to a common cultural influence and sharing a common language.4 While nationhood could rest upon shared descent, this was by no means preordained. The national 'community of culture', Bauer observed in 1907, is 'ever solely a community of nature'--the character of particular individuals is also determined by (i)the culture and customs handed down to them, (ii)the education they receive, (iii)the laws to which they are subject and (iv)the manner in which they acquire their livelihood. In this respect, continued Bauer, 'the conscious choice of membership of a nation other than that of one's birth is possible', as is belonging to an equal or almost equal degree in the cultures of two or more nations.5 3. E.J. Nimni, 'Introduction for the English-reading audience', in O. Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, Minneapolis and London: Universit of Minnesota Press, 2000, p. xxxv; see also: W.A. Kemp, Nationalism and Communism in Eastern Europe and The Soviet Union: A Basic Contradiction? Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999, p. 36; S. Berger and A. Smith, 'Between Scylla and Charibdis: nationalism, labour and ethnicity across five continents 1870-1939', in S. Berger and A. Smith (eds), Nationalism, Labour and Ethnicity, 1870 - 1939, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999, pp. 10-15.
4. Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, pp. 100-102. Here Bauer differentiates between nationality and class as social categories: the English and German working classes, he argues, are not part of a common 'community of fate', for although they experience the same historical forces, they do not do so in a situation of common reciprocal interaction.
5. Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, pp. 96-106. In this regard, Bauer claimed that, for instance, German culture had determined the character of the Czech nation at a fundamental level; however, the adoption of elements of a foreign culture by a nation never entirely eradicated the difference between the two cultures, it only reduces these differences. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 9, 2015 16:14:11 GMT 5.5
nations were substantive historical and social constructs, 'communities of character' born out of constant reciprocal interaction between those subject to a common cultural influence and sharing a common language.4 While nationhood could rest upon shared descent, this was by no means preordained. The national 'community of culture', Bauer observed in 1907, is 'ever solely a community of nature'--the character of particular individuals is also determined by (i)the culture and customs handed down to them, (ii)the education they receive, (iii)the laws to which they are subject and (iv)the manner in which they acquire their livelihood. In this respect, continued Bauer, 'the conscious choice of membership of a nation other than that of one's birth is possible', as is belonging to an equal or almost equal degree in the cultures of two or more nations.5 If the character of a nation or community takes after the character of the individuals it is constituted of, then whatever determines the character of the individuals determines the character of the nation or community. Therefore, as at least the four elements pointed out in the above text (which are reproduced below) determine the characters of individuals, the these elements continually shape the character of the nation or community, meaning that no nation/community remains unchanging like a constant. It follows that the putative original Meiteis first to settle in what is now called Manipur are uncontroversially different from their successive generations, like any of its successive generations is different from any other. For example, the Meitei nation/community that was during the reign of King Kangba was different from that during the reign of King Pakhangba. You can pick up any age and compare with any other, and the difference would be clear. So, what causes this change? At least the above factors. So in the face of this inexorable change, what is so essential in the character of a nation or community that makes it what it is? Is it reasonable to look back into the past and to attempt to bonsai into a pot of past the life living into the future? |
|
