From Foreign Affairs , March/April 2008

Us and Them
The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism
By Jerry Z. Muller
Summary: Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But in fact, it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit, it is galvanized by modernization, and in one form or another, it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.
JERRY Z. MULLER is Professor of History at the Catholic University of America. His most recent book is The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Modern European Thought.

Projecting their own experience onto the rest of the world, Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. After all, in the United States people of varying ethnic origins live cheek by jowl in relative peace. Within two or three generations of immigration, their ethnic identities are attenuated by cultural assimilation and intermarriage. Surely, things cannot be so different elsewhere.

[...]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/26/EDIMV8E54.DTL
From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The return of ethnic nationalism
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, February 26, 2008

In Africa last week, President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.

Following a fraudulent election, the Kikyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.

According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.

“Ethnonationalism,” writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, “has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere.”

Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.

Writes Muller: “A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.”

Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.

World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.

Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.

Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.

In Poland, there were Ukrainians, Germans, Lithuanians and Jews. In Czechslovakia, half the population was German, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian or Jewish. In Yugoslavia were Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Albanians.

World War II came out of Adolf Hitler’s attempt to unite all Germans in one ethnonational home - thus the Anschluss with Austria, the demand for return of the Sudeten Deutsch, and the pressure on Poland to return the Germans’ lost city of Danzig, and for Lithuania to give back German Memel and the Memelland it seized in 1923.

World War II advanced the process in the most horrible of ways.

The Jews of Europe, with no national home, perished, or fled to create one, in Israel. The Germans of the Baltic states, Prussia, Poland, Czechslovakia, the Balkans and their own eastern provinces, almost to Berlin, were expelled in the most brutal act of ethnic cleansing in history - 13 million to 15 million Germans, of whom 2 million perished in the exodus.

At the end of World War II, Europe’s nations were more ethnically homogenous than they had ever been, at a horrendous cost in blood.

After 45 years of Cold War, the remaining multi-ethnic states - the Soviet Union, Czechslovakia and Yugoslavia - broke up into more than two dozen nation-states, all rooted in ethnonationalism.

As Muller argues, ethnonationalism may be a precondition of liberal democracy. Only after all the tribes of Europe had their own ethnically homogenous nation-states did peace and comity come. And what happened in Europe in the 20th century may be a precursor of what is to come in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.

Americans, writes Muller, “find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. ...

“But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”

Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for the United States may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.

And we should look to our own land. According to Pew Research, there will be 127 million Hispanics here by mid-century, tripling today’s 45 million - and almost 100 million new immigrants. No nation faces a graver threat from this resurgence of ethnonationalism than does our own.

Look homeward, America.

Pat Buchanan, Ambersun? Really…

/P

Amber, Amber, Amber… what are we to do with you.

Pat is almost as much a friend of Latvia (and Estonia) as Aleks.

Dying for...Estonia?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
All week, young toughs in Moscow have besieged the Estonian embassy to harass Ambassador Marina Kaljurand. Her bodyguards had to use a mace-like spray to drive back the thugs, who call Estonia a “fascist country.” Estonian diplomats and their families are being pulled out of Moscow and sent home.

Relations between the countries are about to rupture, if the Kremlin does not reign in the bully-boys.

Behind this nasty quarrel is the decision by Estonia to move the giant statue of a Red Army soldier, and the remains of Soviet soldiers, from the center of its capital, Tallinn, to a military cemetery. In Tallinn, patriots and nationalists have clashed with citizens of Russian ancestry over the perceived insult to Mother Russia and the “liberators” of Estonia from the Nazis.

Both points of view in this quarrel are understandable.

To Russians, who lost millions of their grandfathers, fathers and uncles in the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army liberated Europe from Nazism, and their sacrifices ought to be honored. And the Estonians are a pack of ingrates.

To Estonians, the Red Army did not liberate anyone. Having won their independence from the Russian Empire in World War I, they were raped by Russia—to whom they had been ceded as part of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. In June 1940, the Red Army stormed into the three Baltic republics, butchered the elites and shipped scores of thousands off to Stalin’s labor camps never to be seen again.

While the Soviets were expelled from the Baltic republics by the Germans in 1941, they returned in 1944 and held the Baltic peoples in captivity until the Evil Empire collapsed. It was only then that Estonia regained her independence and freedom.

Why should Estonians honor a Red Army that brutalized them and, after driving out the Germans, re-enslaved them for half a century?

Why should this issue be of interest to America?

If President Putin decides the Estonians need a lesson, and sends troops to teach it, the United States, under NATO, would have to treat Russian intervention in Estonia as an attack upon the United States, and declare war on behalf of Estonia.

So we come face to face with the idiocy of having moved NATO onto Russia’s front porch, and having given war guarantees to three little nations with historic animosities toward a nuclear power that has the ability to inflict 1,000 times the destruction upon us as Iran.

Latvia, too, is now a member of NATO. And Latvia, too, has a quarrel with Moscow over its treatment of the descendants of those Russians whom Stalin moved into Latvia to alter its ethnic character. Their children and grandchildren have grown up in Latvia, and know no other home, though they are unwelcome to ethnic Latvians.

Settling these quarrels is essential to peace in Europe. But the notion that Russian intervention in a Baltic republic should be met by a U.S. declaration of war, or any attack upon a nation with thousands of atomic weapons, is the definition of insanity.

Nor are these the only quarrels we have with Putin’s Russia that could explode into full-blown crises. Washington has persuaded the Czech Republic and Poland, two former Warsaw Pact countries, to accept radars and missiles for a U.S. anti-missile system.

We say the missile defense system is directed at Iran. Russians see it as of a piece with the move eastward of NATO and targeted at them. Can we blame them for so thinking, when we responded to their pullout of troops from Central and Eastern Europe by bringing Central and Eastern Europe into a U.S.-led alliance?

If the Russia-baiters in this capital have their way, Ukraine and Georgia will also be brought into NATO. That would commit us to go to war with Russia over control of the Crimean peninsula and the Russian-speaking Donbass of eastern Ukraine, and over the birthplace of Stalin and who should control South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“Moscow would not dare intervene in the Baltic republics!” comes the retort. Perhaps not. But the Russians are now fiercely nationalistic and anti-American. And it is always a mistake for a great power to cede to a minor power the ability to draw it into a great war. Just as it is always a mistake to hand out war guarantees one cannot honor.

In March 1939, Britain gave a war guarantee to Polish colonels who had not requested it, a guarantee Britain had no way of fulfilling. The war that followed cost Britain her empire and Poland 50 years of freedom.

In August 1914, King Albert of Belgium informed King George V that the Kaiser’s troops had crossed his border. He invoked a treaty assuring Belgian neutrality that the British had signed—in 1839!

So, Britain declared war, and 700,000 Brits perished in the Great War that hurled the West onto its present path of self-destruction.

And the march of folly continues on.

From what I understand - there is very little endurance for any ethnic culture in a foreign one. Perhaps those trends may change down the road - but I believe that for the most part - the second generation fpreign born will have very little knowledge of their “ethnic” culture - and most likely - none of the language. I believe it is quite simple - in order to live in a society - you must adapt to the one you are in - if you do not, you will under achieve. Not that sure - but am fairly confident that in the case of intermarriages - the language does not generally even get passed to the first generation foreign born.

Snik,

That must be why the Gypsies across the street still speak Romani, after so many centuries in foreign lands?

You’re using strange definitions of “ethnic” and “foreign”—in essence, Latvians preserved Latvian whilst in their own “foreign” country (I mean, there wasn’t a Latvia until about ninety years ago, and even then it was multilingual, and as we all know its development was very rudely interrupted).

Linguistic policies can be various, just as multiculturalism can mean anything from moonbats in a Celtic twilight to almighty homogenization—but in addition to dying very swiftly, language can also be very resistant to linguicide. This “you must adapt to the one you are in” doesn’t make any sense to me—our society is neither singular nor monolithic. A Russian-speaking Belarusian in Daugavpils is “in Latvian society”? How?

This lovely information age might actually make this matter even more complex—whereas a few decades ago a minority may have thirsted desperately for books, there are now umpteen Russian cable channels, the Internet, four local Russian-language papers, a few national publications in Russian, the entire output of the largest country in the world, and a dozen or so bookstores that sell mostly books in Russian. Theater, movies, etc.—in Russian.

But then this was always a multilingual and multicultural city. My mother and many people here knew a few languages and were happy about that.

In the great scheme of things—sure, one language tends to kill another. Part of the whole point of this Republic was multicultural, though, whether Helēna Demakova likes it or not. The very first speech by that charming man, Kārlis Ulmanis, upon the proclamation of this Republic, included an invitation to our minorities to make this our common home. At that time, this was understood quite radically—German and Russian were spoken in the Saeima, for instance. The law guaranteed education in the mother tongue to minorities.

To get down to brass tacks—if you do not, you will under achieve—but guess who’s gonna “underachieve”? If you peruse the employment section, you will learn that you need to be able to speak Latvian, Russian, and English to get a good job in Latvia. The very people bemoaning the position of Latvian are starting to realize that Latvia may have made a mistake or two—many Latvian schoolchildren no longer study Russian. They won’t get those good jobs, just as Russians who don’t learn Latvian won’t get even decent jobs. But those numbers have an interesting friction against each other these days.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Look before you leap, for goddess sake!  The original article that I was hoping someone would take the time to read is in the very respected, greatly valued scholarly periodical, FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  Anyone, like Peteris, Andrejs, whoever else got all wired about the Pat Buchanan review of the FOREIGN AFFAIRS article that I posted in full, needs to calm down and slow down.  Pat Buchanan’s review was published in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle, that’s San Francisco, which you obviously failed to note.  In my part of the world we expect to read from many sources and don’t freak that Pat Buchanan has written something.  He also has a sister, Babe Buchanan, who is terrific to watch as a talking head, even if you don’t agree with a word she says.  Most political pundits will cover this article and you should feel happy to get a jump on reading it.  I don’t know if the March/April issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS is even readily available on the newstands.  Instead of commenting on Pat Buchanan, if you really care to discuss anything about this, please go to http://www.foreignaffairs.org, type in Jerry Z. Muller, read the full 8 pages (too lengthy to post on LOL) of Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism .  It’s an article, a scholarly point of view, not the new bible, not my personal religion.

Dear Andrejs,
Pat Buchanan may have said other things but he also said, “But the Russians are now fiercely nationalistic and anti-American.”Pat Buchanan is hardly the only American commentator bewildered by America’s foreign policy towards Russia: one day it was kissy-face and soul-connection with Putin and now the love is really gone.  I wouldn’t have jumped into a soul-relationship with Putin to begin with.  For that matter, I wouldn’t have voted for Bush.

One more thing:
The Age Of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby

Bill Moyers Journal . Susan Jacoby | PBS
Susan Jacoby follows a notable scholarly tradition with her new book, THE AGE OF , ... Susan Jacoby on NOW WITH BILL MOYERS. Bill Moyers talked with author ...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/profile.html

What? Me freak? I’m not the one who freaked because Aleks’ toes don’t exactly start a taping whenever he hears kur tu teci gailit man.
Noted the datelines. Not the point.

Andrejs, a real heavy weight

And if we are to note and selectively quote form what Pat writes, wrote, and will write, then the only conclusion one can draw is that Pat will always advocate realpolitik when it comes to Russia. And never ever will he be a friend to Latvia or the Baltics. He will always pragmatically choose Russia over Latvia each and every time. I thought that was how you’d define your agenda? Whether someone is pro-us and anti-them?
Not to mention that Pat has always had a bit of the demagogue in him and will take shots at anyone he feels slighted by at the moment at any opportunity. Sometimes regardless of policy, theory or ideology. Often in very greatly valued publications.

Andrejs, a real heavy weight

Dear Andrejs,

So what do you think of the FOREIGN AFFAIRS article?

Svelte wishes,

Amber

PS Have you thought of starting an exercise program?

My Dear Amber,

I thought it was a very long article. Thanks for the wishes.

Andrejs

Peteri - I certainly agree with what you are saying - but you are indeed talking about an enviromental aspect. If you are required certain languages, it is in your bet interest to learn them. There are certainly many groups that maintain their culture and language even in a foreign country - but many of those have done so by isolating themselves, or have traditionally been migratory in their very nature. Locally - the best example of surviving groups are probably Mennonites, Hutterites, Italians and Greeks. The first two groups have colonies where they live in their own way - they school themselves, they provide most of their own needs themselves, and in many ways do not necessarily make use of many items we often take for granted - TV’s per se. The Italians and Greeks are different in the sense that while they may indeed have a sector of a city where they primarily reside - they also have a more frequent injection of new immigrants than many other groups. There also many of them that seem to reside part time in one country, and part time in their native land.

For other groups - the first generation is either raised in a manner where they are taught their parent’s language and customs - or - they are not. When they subsequently marry - if they do not marry within their culture - it is unlikely that they will pass on their other tongue - in that it is unlikely that that language would be the day to day language of the home enviroment. There are most certainly exceptions.

There are also another type - those that know only to speak church, food, or swear. If Baba is Ukrainian - odds are pretty good that you will speak food. If mom and dad still attend church in their language - son or daughter will likely know the responses. The ones who learn only the swear words - who knows. To me - none of these qualify as being able to speak a language. I can personally do the Ukrainian mass (excluding the creed) - but I do not understand or speak the language.

Today there are certainly many ways in which to enhance your ability in a language. If I had those resources 25 years back - my Latvian would indeed be much better. I am trying to improve those abilities - although it will not grant me anything but persoanl satisfaction. I am proud of my ethnic heritage, and have almost alweays wanted to learn more about it. In my environment unfortunately - most people do not even know what a Latvian is.

Who can tell what changes there will be in Latvija in the coming years as far as language is concerned. Russia and Germany will likely continue to influence the business enviroment though. Such being the case it is likely that there will be advantages for individuals that are fluent in those languages. The English aspect is certainly world wide.

Personally - my biggest challenge re the Latvian Language, is that I seldom have the opportunity to use it. Over the years the draw back to that is that I had stopped thinking in Latvian. Maybe I am incorrect in my contention that in order to properly speak a language, you must be able to think in it. I now often take the time to think Latvian. The web - and groups like these certainly halp in thirst for other knowledge - but an individual also must want to participate.

This is in re: to the Pat Buchanan piece.  I remember that one that Andrejs posted very specifically.  And it calls to mind what a person (non Lett), but married to a Latvian once said, about why on earth American blood should be spilled for the sake of a small country like Latvia, who no one ever heard of anyway.  It’s something I still think about, wondering,how many other people feel exactly the same way.

Irena

Hi Snik!

The HUGE personal gain from knowing another language is that you are less likely to get Alzheimers’s disease!! That in and of itself makes Latvian worth knowing.

Also, with the funerals you attend in Winnipeg, I am certain that this older generation has OODLES of books in Latvian and with a dwindling readership, may not have anyone who is interested in them. Ask to borrow or buy!

Start with anything and read outloud. Pasakas are great ( a lesson in every one) or anything by Anslavs Eglitis--easy adult language.

No, you do not need to think in Latvian to speak. Just do it, as Nike says!

Good luck!