While watching this excellent overview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1346564443419748239) on Israel-Palestine by Jeff Halper, I was surprised to discover that the reason Jews (after 1000 years) were not considered Russians is because East Europe has innate beliefs in ethnocracy as the criteria of land ownership (ie Russia belongs to ethnic Russians).

This is the first time I have heard this. It seems really strange.

Could some East Europeans clarify this?


/moderator, please move if not appropriate.

Well, sure. If you ask anyone, what's their nationality, Russian Latvian citizens will most likely say that it's Russian and Latvian Latvian citizens will tell them that it's Latvian because they have Latvian ancestry.
Nationality in popular langauge here means ethnicity, and it's not something you can change by changing a passport.

Open societies are becoming increasingly, and more overtly multiethnic everywhere. Globally, ethnocracy is breaking down, which future anthropologists will surely note. I say good riddance to monoculturalism.

Halper's presentation is an illuminating review- and it's particularly convincing coming from an Israeli activist. I doubt that his introductory point was that tribal nationalism was or is unique to Eastern Europe. We've seen it in the West too, and it persists today. The Afrikaners who prototyped modern Israel's increasingly-apparent apartheid and bantustan system of ethnic separaticsm were not Eastern Europeans. Basque separatists are not Eastern European, etc. It seemed to me that Halper only nodded to the influence of Eastern European immigrants to Israel, without a real thesis that zionist or ethnocratic ideology is uniquely Eastern-European.

Halper's general point did distinguish the origins of what we sometimes call "Western" democracies, as evolved from the French and USAmerican revolutions, in a subtle refutation of the often-repeated zionist canard that Israel is an island of "Western Democracy" in the Mideast.

East and West is a very fuzzy dichotomy in Europe, and in current political ideologies. I lived in the Czech Republic for 2 years, and it was obvious to me that the general orientation of most Czechs is "Western". In other words, the Cold War lines (which is where this dichotomy was most clearly if temporarily drawn) have long been entirely blurred in terms of ideology.

It might be more useful to compare multiethnic democracy with tribal nationalism, without assigning any hemispheric models. These are portable concepts in place and thought, and looking back in an anthropological perspective seems to get fairly clumsy, the closer to the present the analysis moves.

Thanks for linking the KC Sabeel Conference (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7444965231554536524), Sam. I hadn't heard of it, and a lot was covered there beyond the East European Ethnocracy model- Don Wagner's talk on Christian Zionism in the USA reveals a great deal about the core base of USAmerican support for zionism.

I would also be interested if some members here with an Eastern European background would respond, with their impressions of whether ethnic nationalism seems like an Eastern European franchise to them.

their impressions of whether ethnic nationalism seems like an Eastern European franchise to them.
What do you mean by that?

Open societies are becoming increasingly, and more overtly multiethnic everywhere. Globally, ethnocracy is breaking down, which future anthropologists will surely note. I say good riddance to monoculturalism.

I disagree, it's the opposite. State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes. Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces. Read the Transformation of War.

Should present trends continue then the kind of war that is based on the division between government, army, and people seems to be on its way out. The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state. Over the long run, the place of the state will be taken by warmaking organizations of a different type.

This subject is even more of a focus in "The Coming Anarchy".

Sierra Leone is a microcosm of what is occurring, albeit in a more tempered and gradual manner, throughout West Africa and much of the underdeveloped world: the withering away of central governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease, and the growing pervasiveness of war. West Africa is reverting to the Africa of the Victorian atlas. ... And West Africa's future, eventually, will also be that of most of the rest of the world.

...On a recent visit to the Turkish-Iranian border, it occurred to me what a risky idea the nation-state is. Here I was on the legal fault line between two clashing civilizations, Turkic and Iranian. Yet the reality was more subtle: as in West Africa, the border was porous and smuggling abounded, but here the people doing the smuggling, on both sides of the border, were Kurds. In such a moonscape, over which peoples have migrated and settled in patterns that obliterate borders, the end of the Cold War will bring on a cruel process of natural selection among existing states. No longer will these states be so firmly propped up by the West or the Soviet Union. Because the Kurds overlap with nearly everybody in the Middle East, on account of their being cheated out of a state in the post-First World War peace treaties, they are emerging, in effect, as the natural selector—the ultimate reality check. They have destabilized Iraq and may continue to disrupt states that do not offer them adequate breathing space, while strengthening states that do.

Africa is not a particulary good example, most of them were never real states to begin with (created artificially), and now are simply returning to their true stage of development.

I say good riddance to monoculturalism.

Multiculturalism (inequality) is the work of Empires.

It creates frustration, turmoil and discontent on a global scale.

Purity is the only solution to avarice and aggression (colonialism).

Multiculturalism is fun and interesting, provided that the members of that other culture aren't violent religious zealots.

Purity? You're racist or something?

Its not the violent religious zealots you need to watch out for, its the illusion of knowledge generated by separatists.

No, I think it's exactly the religious zealots. They're unpredictable, irrational and dangerous.
And wtf is "illusion of knowledge generated by separatists"?

And wtf is "illusion of knowledge generated by separatists"?

Something like this:

No, I think it's exactly the religious zealots. They're unpredictable, irrational and dangerous.

Well, because they are. Just look at all that fuss because of some Muhamed cartoons.
Don't agree with you.

Well, because they are. Just look at all that fuss because of some Muhamed cartoons.
Don't agree with you.

Thats part of the illusion of knowledge generated by separatists.

It took 3-4 months for the cartoons to create a fuss.

The second publication passed without (much) incidence.

You're offtopic and talking nonsense again.

spidergoat: "State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes."

Recent history shows that nuclear deterrence, or "standoff" does not prevent states from engaging in warfare. Military conquest is becoming increasingly impractical in light of many factors. I don't follow your suggestion of some historic paradigm-shift due to bigger bombs. Would you please elaborate on that?

"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."

The most ascendant and dominant states today are multi-ethnic. "Non-state-entities" such as major corporations are predominately multiethnic. How does this fit your thesis?

"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."

That makes little sense to me: Low-intensity conflicts are commonly exploited today for the purpose of consolidating state power.

"The Coming Anarchy"

People everywhere do not tend to enjoy, or wish to sustain anarchy. Whether you mean anarchy in the sense of chaos, or the political ideal, neither seems attractive, or to be gaining in mass appeal.

DeepThought: "Multiculturalism (inequality) is the work of Empires."

That's a strange conflation of terms. Defining multiculturalism as inequality, or as imperialism isn't accurate. How do you tie the two toether, DT?

"Purity is the only solution to avarice and aggression"

As Avatar remarked, that provocative statement calls for some explanation.

"Just look at all that fuss because of some Muhamed cartoons."

It certainly wasn't a world-changing, or unique phenomenon. Fundamentalists are easily insulted everywhere. Neither was that fuss evidence that fundamentalism is gaining ground.


In a broad historical and anthropological perspective, it seems evident that a vector toward multiculturalism, as opposed to ethnically-based states, is what humanity is traveling on. We've generally evolved (or devolved perhaps, from a separatist perspective) from universal clanhood and tribalism in our distant past, to the rise of modern states that increasingly encompass many ethnicities. The most unstable parts of the world today are those where extremes of ethnic competition and oppression persist. It's now axiomatic that segregationism is politically inflammatory and destabilizing.

You're offtopic and talking nonsense again.

If you're talking multiculturism, you need to be aware of manipulation as a source of conflict generation.

1. Since when do people in the Middle East read Danish newspapers?

2. Why was there a fuss over the cartoons 3-4 months after they were published in Denmark?

3. Why did most of the violence take place in the countries outside the western societies?

4. Why were two more cartoons added to the original set?

Manipulation of "knowledge" or facts to misrepresent the "other" is a common method of all separatists. It is excellently demonstrated by both the Nazi regime and by the Godless warriors of Stalin. To confuse this system of "framing" with religious zealotry is to underestimate its effect. (The Shiv Sena in Mumbai for example frequently represents Shivaji as a Hindu fundamentalist when he was a secular pluralist, just as Christian Zionists represent Jesus as a Christian warrior (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4515761169636548436))

I am curious, what is your personal view of ownership. Does a country belong to its inhabitants or to an ethnicity?

Land belongs to no-one, it's fiction, you can't own the land. The state should be run and the land legally used by its citizens, not inhabitants. Local governments are an exception and should be also run by inhabitants of that particular administrative territory.

About your cartoons - I don't care by whoom it was arranged, the important thing is that those people rioted due to some atavistic and irrational religious sensibilities. And there are many other examples of the danger of religious fanatics.

Land belongs to no-one, it's fiction, you can't own the land. The state should be run and the land legally used by its citizens, not inhabitants. Local governments are an exception and should be also run by inhabitants of that particular administrative territory.

So you define citizens as separate from inhabitants? And yet you claim no land ownership?

So what gives citizens these rights?



About your cartoons - I don't care by whoom it was arranged, the important thing is that those people rioted due to some atavistic and irrational religious sensibilities. And there are many other examples of the danger of religious fanatics.

You'll be an excellent target for anti-theist separatists.

(ie Russia belongs to ethnic Russians).

Defenetely

Russian land is Russian an NO ONE ELSES.

And every soil will be fought for and the rivers of this soil will turn blood red with enemy who dared come and take our land.

So you define citizens as separate from inhabitants?
Of course, there's a world of difference. Simple inhabitants don't have a strong connection with the state.
And yet you claim no land ownership?
That's a purely philosophical stance with regards to human arrogance about their status in the Universe. In the real world I think the land should be legally owned by the state as a whole and inhabitants should be able to only rent it.
So what gives citizens these rights?
The internationally recognized power to do it.

Defenetely

Russian land is Russian an NO ONE ELSES.

I agree, but only the territories inhabited by ethnic Russians.
You have no place in Checenia.

. In the real world I think the land should be legally owned by the state as a whole and inhabitants should be able to only rent it..

Thats what the laws are in Saudi Arabia and (most of) Israel.

Cool, best for them.

I agree, but only the territories inhabited by ethnic Russians.
You have no place in Checenia.

Chechnya has already become Russian. Unfortunately Chechnya cannot be given independence, they will turn to another Afghanistan. Why do you think Russia gave away that huge chunk of land to Kazakhstan? Just gave it away, no *hissing*, no problems? Because Kazakh people have an ability to rule themselves, and so does Latvia, and so do many other ex-Soviet states. But Chechnya is way too close to Moscow and way too dangerous to be left uncontrolled.

it's unfortunate.

You'll be an excellent target for anti-theist separatists.
Hardly anyone cares about religion here.

Chechnya has already become Russian. Unfortunately Chechnya cannot be given independence, they will turn to another Afghanistan. Why do you think Russia gave away that huge chunk of land to Kazakhstan? Just gave it away, no *hissing*, no problems? Because Kazakh people have an ability to rule themselves, and so does Latvia, and so do many other ex-Soviet states. But Chechnya is way too close to Moscow and way too dangerous to be left uncontrolled.

it's unfortunate.

Hmm, maybe you're right.

Chechnya has already become Russian. Unfortunately Chechnya cannot be given independence, they will turn to another Afghanistan. Why do you think Russia gave away that huge chunk of land to Kazakhstan? Just gave it away, no *hissing*, no problems? Because Kazakh people have an ability to rule themselves, and so does Latvia, and so do many other ex-Soviet states. But Chechnya is way too close to Moscow and way too dangerous to be left uncontrolled.

it's unfortunate.

Whats the "problem" with Chechnya? How is their ethnicity different? Whats their background?

Multiculturalism is fun and interesting, provided that the members of that other culture aren't violent religious zealots.

Purity? You're racist or something?

Was chattel slavery fun?

For who exactly?

And the Holocaust? Was that fun as well?

I expect colonialism was a great deal of fun for some.

Because you live in an ethnically homogeneous region and watch too much American television, you are falling into the trap of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Don't go chasing waterfalls
Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that
You're used to
I know that you're gonna have it your way
Or nothing at all
But I think you re moving too fast.

Was chattel slavery fun?
the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

it is greener on the other side of the fence, greener from nourishment of blood

That's a strange conflation of terms. Defining multiculturalism as inequality, or as imperialism isn't accurate. How do you tie the two toether, DT?

Multicultural societies are the result of slavery and colonialism. To advocate their continuation is immoral and wrong. Multiculturalism is simply used to sell more products and expand free markets, it has nothing to do with morality from what I can see.

Multiculturalism is an attack on non Western cultures.

it seems evident that a vector toward multiculturalism, as opposed to ethnically-based states, is what humanity is traveling on

The world would be a better place had colonialism and slavery never happened. It cannot be rectified by continuing the very civilizations it has created.

Multiculturalism is an attack on non Western cultures.
How come, according to your logic, only non western?

"State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes."

Recent history shows that nuclear deterrence, or "standoff" does not prevent states from engaging in warfare. Military conquest is becoming increasingly impractical in light of many factors. I don't follow your suggestion of some historic paradigm-shift due to bigger bombs. Would you please elaborate on that?

Low level warfare, and none between states that have the weapons.

"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."

The most ascendant and dominant states today are multi-ethnic. "Non-state-entities" such as major corporations are predominately multiethnic. How does this fit your thesis?

I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.

"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."

That makes little sense to me: Low-intensity conflicts are commonly exploited today for the purpose of consolidating state power.
Did that work in Vietnam? Has it worked ever? In LICs, the native group has the advantage, depending on geography.

"The Coming Anarchy"

People everywhere do not tend to enjoy, or wish to sustain anarchy. Whether you mean anarchy in the sense of chaos, or the political ideal, neither seems attractive, or to be gaining in mass appeal.
That's the name of a book, and it means the chaos kind of anarchy.


In a broad historical and anthropological perspective, it seems evident that a vector toward multiculturalism, as opposed to ethnically-based states, is what humanity is traveling on. We've generally evolved (or devolved perhaps, from a separatist perspective) from universal clanhood and tribalism in our distant past, to the rise of modern states that increasingly encompass many ethnicities. The most unstable parts of the world today are those where extremes of ethnic competition and oppression persist. It's now axiomatic that segregationism is politically inflammatory and destabilizing.

This is a paradigm that is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.

"State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes."

Recent history shows that nuclear deterrence, or "standoff" does not prevent states from engaging in warfare. Military conquest is becoming increasingly impractical in light of many factors. I don't follow your suggestion of some historic paradigm-shift due to bigger bombs. Would you please elaborate on that?

Even states have been dragged into LICs, but there are none between states that have the weapons.

"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."

The most ascendant and dominant states today are multi-ethnic. "Non-state-entities" such as major corporations are predominately multiethnic. How does this fit your thesis?

I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.

"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."

That makes little sense to me: Low-intensity conflicts are commonly exploited today for the purpose of consolidating state power.
Did that work in Vietnam? Has it worked ever? In LICs, the native group has the advantage, depending on geography.

"The Coming Anarchy"

People everywhere do not tend to enjoy, or wish to sustain anarchy. Whether you mean anarchy in the sense of chaos, or the political ideal, neither seems attractive, or to be gaining in mass appeal.
That's the name of a book, and it means the chaos kind of anarchy.


In a broad historical and anthropological perspective, it seems evident that a vector toward multiculturalism, as opposed to ethnically-based states, is what humanity is traveling on. We've generally evolved (or devolved perhaps, from a separatist perspective) from universal clanhood and tribalism in our distant past, to the rise of modern states that increasingly encompass many ethnicities. The most unstable parts of the world today are those where extremes of ethnic competition and oppression persist. It's now axiomatic that segregationism is politically inflammatory and destabilizing.

This paradigm is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.

How come, according to your logic, only non western?

Non Western cultures do not advocate multiracial/multicultural societies, because they do not practice such a high degree of control over and manipulation of, their own populations for material gain.

Africa is not a particularly good example, most of them were never real states to begin with (created artificially), and now are simply returning to their true stage of development.

Africa is not the only example. Everyone is separating, or on the verge of it; Georgia is the most recent instance with Abkhazia and South Ossetia separating.

Non Western cultures do not advocate multiracial/multicultural societies, because they do not practice such a high degree of control over and manipulation of, their own populations for material gain.

You think multiculturalism is not a shocker for places that have been multicultural for hundreds of years? You'd be surprised.

Nobody likes outsiders, outsiders don't always want to fit in. That explains current tensions between Muslim immigrants and inhabitants of whatever places to which they come -- all over Western Europe. U.S. is the same: immigrants are welcome only in some states, and some immigrants aren't welcome at all anymore. Generally, people like to live with their own kind. Multiculturalism is fun only as a bit of exotic, which means most people like to get a taste of it and go back to their usual lives. Actually, economy is one of the most rational reasons to dislike immigrants: they take away jobs from the native population and drive down salaries.

You think multiculturalism is not a shocker for places that have been multicultural for hundreds of years? You'd be surprised.

Nobody likes outsiders, outsiders don't always want to fit in. That explains current past tensions between Muslim Jewish immigrants and inhabitants of whatever places to which they come -- all over Western Europe. U.S. is the same: immigrants are welcome only in some states, and some immigrants aren't welcome at all anymore. Generally, people like to live with their own kind. Multiculturalism is fun only as a bit of exotic, which means most people like to get a taste of it and go back to their usual lives. Actually, economy is one of the most rational reasons to dislike immigrants: they take away jobs from the native population and drive down salaries.

Ah, I see.

Well, sure. If you ask anyone, what's their nationality, Russian Latvian citizens will most likely say that it's Russian and Latvian Latvian citizens will tell them that it's Latvian because they have Latvian ancestry.
Nationality in popular langauge here means ethnicity, and it's not something you can change by changing a passport.

How would you term me? :p

That's because of a very odd sense of loyalty, loyalty which I still don't understand. People who have never set their foot on Russian soil and who have no relatives there claim patriotism towards Russia and support Putin. It looks odd to me because I've seen the big bulk of the populace that terms itself "Russian" but in fact comes from all of the different countries of former USSR, and they're all very different in ethnic appearance and culture.

In U.S., nationality is defined by birth. If you were born here, you are automatically American citizen. Ethnic background doesn't matter so much to people who were born here as it does to 1st generation immigrants; except for the unspoken rule that almost all U.S. presidents have been WASP men.

How would you term me? :p


you are definetly not Russian.

Ah, I see.

I'm glad you see.

Hassidic Jews never tried to fit in in any way. Those who were less religious and more liberal did try, but they were sifted out whenever a population wanted to "purify" itself. I'm not sure why it's so common to believe that Jews' ethnicity has been watered down. There's an unspoken rule that Jews only marry Jews and outsiders are always discouraged from converting to Judaism. They haven't mixed that much.

This rule is common to all conservative, traditional societies. Many Indians who move here seek to arrange marriage for their children with someone from their homeland. Same thing for people from all over USSR, and if they don't seek in the homeland they at least marry someone from another former USSR member. Same for Chinese and Japanese, etc. The Britons are more liberal, but they have little choice left. :D

I'm glad you see.

Hassidic Jews never tried to fit in in any way. Those who were less religious and more liberal did try, but they were sifted out whenever a population wanted to "purify" itself. I'm not sure why it's so common to believe that Jews' ethnicity has been watered down. There's an unspoken rule that Jews only marry Jews and outsiders are always discouraged from converting to Judaism. They haven't mixed that much.

This rule is common to all conservative, traditional societies. Many Indians who move here seek to arrange marriage for their children with someone from their homeland. Same thing for people from all over USSR, and if they don't seek in the homeland they at least marry someone from another former USSR member. Same for Chinese and Japanese, etc. The Britons are more liberal, but they have little choice left. :D

Yes, fortunately the "problem" with Muslims has never been as extreme, not until immigrants started moving from war torn countries and were demonised for their beliefs. :)

In fact, Muslims have been emigrating for 1400 years all over the world, while problems with immigrants are a recent and very much a western issue. Probably because of the lack of notions of exclusivity in Islam.

Also, I would say Jewish assimilation depended on the culture they went to. They assimilated very well in China and India for instance, probably due to a culture of inclusiveness.

Yes, fortunately the "problem" with Muslims has never been as extreme, not until immigrants started moving from war torn countries and were demonised for their beliefs. :)

In fact, Muslims have been emigrating for 1400 years all over the world, while problems with immigrants are a recent and very much a western issue. Probably because of the lack of notions of exclusivity in Islam.

It's not a recent issue with Muslims. It started with the Crusades, went on with Spanish Reconquista, and is still going on now.

The same sentiment is felt for Gypsies.

I can't say this hatred towards Muslims is without any basis. It might be exaggerated, but at least it is mutual. We don't hear of that many fits of multiculturalism in Muslim countries. Muslims try to impose their ways of life on native populations of countries to which they emigrate and that is naturally met with hostility.

India has very bad relations with Pakistan; on which side are you?

It's not a recent issue with Muslims. It started with the Crusades, went on with Spanish Reconquista, and is still going on now.

The same sentiment is felt for Gypsies.

I can't say this hatred towards Muslims is without any basis. It might be exaggerated, but at least it is mutual. We don't hear of that many fits of multiculturalism in Muslim countries. Muslims try to impose their ways of life on native populations of countries to which they emigrate and that is naturally met with hostility.

How many Muslim countries have you been to?
And yes, its a western issue. After all colonialism and mass genocide of natives is the western method of immigration, so they look on immigrants who are unlike them with suspicion.


India has very bad relations with Pakistan; on which side are you?

Not really. We have bad relations with dictators in Pakistan, people have relatives on both sides.

It is not a manner of immigration, it is the way of conquering, following Machiavelli's advice to the dot. Whoever is interested in world history and politics should read that piece of work, it is key to understanding why things happened the way they did and why things are the way they are now.

well although i am of eastern european descent i have never lived or visited there but if anyone wants to what i think here it goes. the ethnicities in Eastern Europe have been conquered and invaded a lot. so they have a reason for viewing outsiders with a grain of salt. All said and done though some of them have had reputations for tolerence. Look at poland during the crusades there were muslims there but they were never touched

How would you term me?
Strangely enough - Latvian, if you don't wish me to think otherwise, American, for example.