| View previous topic :: View next topic |
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
 |
|
I still stand by Simon De Montfort NOT being English. William the Conqueror was the grandson of Hrolf, a viking. Was William a viking? No. (Beware this topic as it can open up a whole new thing about what is a person's nationality.)
But that's by the by. As pertaining to nation states Mick, what about the earlier states, eg. Sparta?
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| TelMiles wrote: | | I still stand by Simon De Montfort NOT being English. |
That's okay. I don't. I prefer to look at his immediate heritage (his mother was English and the source of his English titles) before declaring nationality. My own nationality is Scots. I married an East German. My son is half Scots and half East German.
| William the Conqueror was the grandson of Hrolf, a viking. Was William a viking? |
No, because Hrolf wasn't his father. Or even his father's father. A few generations separated them:
Rollo (Hrolf) the Ganger - r.911-925
William Longsword - r.925-942
Richard I 'the Fearless' - r.942- 996
Richard II 'the Good' - r.966-1027
Richard III - r.1027
Robert II (brother of Richard III) 'the Magnificent' - b.1000
William 'the Conqueror - r.1066-1087
That was a bad example. I would never suggest that William was Norse (despite your own words, 'Viking' was not a nationality) just because his great, great, great grand-father was. But since de Montfort's mother was English, I have no problem calling Simon half English/half French.
| The Simon De Montfort that led the Albigensian Crusade was a French nobleman...I still stand by Simon De Montfort NOT being English. |
We will have to agree to disagree about this.
By the way, my wee boy has 'duel nationality' (Scots father, German Mother), a concept recognised by the Deutsch and British states. This is probably why I am prepared to fight a duel for the duellies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
All this from a fairly accurate description of Simon's nationality by Hatty.
| Hatty wrote: | | ...the English Simon de Montfort, though clearly of French antecedents |
Hatty said he was English/French. Tel claims he was simply French. Therefore Hatty wins the "who is more accurate" competition.
And so do I.
Teslarian grins mischievously and moon-walks out the door.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| As pertaining to nation states Mick, what about the earlier states, eg. Sparta? |
One of the chief characteristics of nation-states is that they are immortal -- ie all nation-states that have ever existed exist now. (But see Note CMXII for Scotland and England). Was Sparta immortal....if so, which qualifying group is she in for the next World Cup?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| One of the chief characteristics of nation-states is that they are immortal -- ie all nation-states that have ever existed exist now. |
Is that a premise or a conclusion?
{I think I'll chip-in because I don't know what y'all are talking about.}
There are 2 things I want to know.
1. The English were nancies throughout the first millennium AD. Then they took over the world. Why? It seems to have something to do with the fact that the Normans never left.
2. What is the link between nation-statehood and ethnicity? The Beaker People thread started with the observation that England appears to have been a political entity in the third millennium BC.
Do "nation-states are immortal" and "the Beaker state in England proved to be mortal" guarantee that the Beaker People were not English?
Or could it be, say, that nation-states are only immortal in the presence of other nation-states, which would allow for any number of them to be born and die again before the appropriate number (two? five?) arise at once to make each other's appearance irreversible?
Is the illusion of immortality just because the time scales are so long? With the MegalithiCelts, we're talking about several thousand years. Now it's the turn of England, but will we last only a few more thousand years before Holland redraws the map of the world...?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
One of the chief characteristics of nation-states is that they are immortal -- ie all nation-states that have ever existed exist now.
Is that a premise or a conclusion? |
As you know, as you ought to know by now, Applied Epistemology ordains that you don't start with definitions you end with them. At the moment the situation is that there are a number of independent political entities that have endured for a long time with the same boundaries. We (ie AE-ists) have cautiously named these "nation-states" even though we are aware that
a) it is to some degree self-selecting since those independent political entities that have perished have disqualified themselves and
b) orthodoxy plays fast and loose with the term.
| 1. The English were nancies throughout the first millennium AD. Then they took over the world. Why? It seems to have something to do with the fact that the Normans never left. |
No, for the first three hundred years it was definitely not the English wot took over the world. You call it 'English' but I would call it Norman and then Angevin. Yes, England was part of these empires but only in the sense that New Guinea was part of the nineteenth century British Empire. I wouldn't say that New Guineans took over the world in the nineteenth century.
You should be asking yourself when England became a nation-state ie it acquired its immortal borders. Then...and only then could we embark on a campaign of world conquest. ONO
| 2. What is the link between nation-statehood and ethnicity? The Beaker People thread started with the observation that England appears to have been a political entity in the third millennium BC |
There is no necessary link. Belgium for instance is almost half-and-half, most other nation-states (including England) have/had substantial linguistic minorities (the Welsh in our case). The USA has no overall ethnicity. But there is no doubt -- eg England, France, Spain -- that nation-states are assisted in their formation if you can get all one language-speakers into one nation-state.
| Do "nation-states are immortal" and "the Beaker state in England proved to be mortal" guarantee that the Beaker People were not English? |
Weird, man. There was no Beaker state in England that we know of even if Beaker folk were English. Since no nation-state existed before about the first millenium AD, it's a poor guide to what language was being spoken by which lot of people making which sort of beaker.
| Or could it be, say, that nation-states are only immortal in the presence of other nation-states, which would allow for any number of them to be born and die again before the appropriate number (two? five?) arise at once to make each other's appearance irreversible? |
I can't entirely follow this. All nation-states are immortal whether in the presence of others or not. However nation-states do give rise to other nation-states by emulation, due to their very great efficiency. Since nation-states have to have immortal boundaries they do tend to have a geometrical effect on contiguous countries (eg Scotland and England) but -- on the other hand -- it is politically useful to avoid having joint boundaries with other powerful states so.... well this leads us into areas too complex for this introductory stage of the System Analysis of Great Power Behaviour and The Rise Of The Nation-State..
| Is the illusion of immortality just because the time scales are so long? With the MegalithiCelts, we're talking about several thousand years. Now it's the turn of England, but will we last only a few more thousand years before Holland redraws the map of the world...? |
I don't think so. We have no idea of the longevity of any state that was set up by the MegalithiCelts. Several thousand years seem preposterous even given that MegalithiCelts were around for that long, or ruling the roost for that long. It's true both England and Holland had "their turn" as Great Powers but this has no effect on the fact that both England and Holland have had immortal borders for half-a-millennium. And if you look at Holland's southern border -- its reason for being there (a temporary ceasfire line in a war against Spain), its ethnic rationale (none since it splits the Dutch-speakers in two) -- you will begin to appreciate the curious tenacity of nation-state boundaries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| No, for the first three hundred years it was definitely not the English wot took over the world... You should be asking yourself when England became a nation-state |
By "then they took over the world" I didn't mean "immediately", just "in due course". You tell me what "in due course" means. I have no idea.
Is it in fact true that the Normans never left (in the way that the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Romans, the Belgae, the Celts... did)? What did they have to do with establishing England's immortal borders?
| Belgium for instance is almost half-and-half |
But is this a necessarily stable situation? What about (East/West) Germany and Yugoslavia?
[aside]
| The USA has no overall ethnicity. |
This isn't the place for this, but: soon after seeing a map of the dominant ethnic group in every American county that showed the vast majority to be German, I saw an ad for a book that promised to be full of fascinating facts such as "English was chosen over German as the official language of the United States by one vote". (Can't remember anything about either now.)
[/aside]
| There was no Beaker state in England that we know of even if Beaker folk were English. |
Weird, man. The Beaker state in England is whatever political unit is indicated by the delineation of Beakers along England/Celtland lines, but whether under domestic or foreign rule is to be determined.
Are not nation-states self-ruled, by definition?
Would not a self-ruled, well defined area of uniform ethnicity qualify as a nation-state?
Does the Beaker state's failure to survive then suggest it was not self-ruled, i.e. was therefore an overseas colony of someone else?
What else is there to nation-statehood? Who has to agree that the criteria obtain?
You might have said Beaker England must have been a fluid entity and the illusion of the England/Celtland border is an artefact of the map...
| Since no nation-state existed before about the first millenium AD... |
That is the question!
Are you saying "look: here they all are" -- a very poor argument -- or "this is how they work" -- a potentially powerful argument?
| All nation-states are immortal whether in the presence of others or not. |
Please explain.
Is it impossible to liken them to typewriter typebars: they go up and down indefinitely, just missing each other perhaps; but eventually two come up together, just right to jam and hold each other up indefinitely; and jam every other one that comes up from then on?
| Several thousand years seem preposterous even given that MegalithiCelts were around for that long, or ruling the roost for that long. |
Why preposterous, given that MegalithiCelts were around for that long, or ruling the roost for that long?
If nation-states really are immortal then you ain't seen nothin' yet. But if they are mutually sustaining only for a handful of millennia then... well... you still ain't seen nothin' yet. How can we judge what is preposterous?
| It's true both England and Holland had "their turn" as Great Powers... |
I was merely proceeding from left to right, as though after Ireland/Wales (MegalithiCelts) then England as the centres of World Power Regimes, it follows that Holland is up next.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
No, for the first three hundred years it was definitely not the English wot took over the world... You should be asking yourself when England became a nation-state
By "then they took over the world" I didn't mean "immediately", just "in due course". You tell me what "in due course" means. I have no idea. |
Simple really. Up until c 1300 England was a big fat zero. She was either a nullity in European politics or actually part of a European empire. Then when we had acquired our permanent borders (in the west by conquering the Welsh and in the north by having a border with a similarly permanent nation-state, Scotland) we found ourselves in the curious position of being able to duff up everybody else but they could never duff us up. (Save for Scotland of course, but they were smaller so we didna hae to bother very much...but even so Scotland was able to do things to us that France, Spain, Holland and Germany never could!).
In other words we were the only nation-state so we ruled the roost. When France and Spain cottoned on and became nation-states too, we had to fuck off back to where we came from.
| Is it in fact true that the Normans never left (in the way that the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Romans, the Belgae, the Celts... did)? What did they have to do with establishing England's immortal borders? |
Nothing whatsoever. It just so happened that they were the last invaders before we became a nation-state so we use many of their governing features (like counting kings).
Belgium for instance is almost half-and-half
But is this a necessarily stable situation? What about (East/West) Germany and Yugoslavia? |
But that is precisely the point. Belgium became a nation-state (not that she knew it at the time) in 1830 and has therefore been stuck with probably the most inconvenient borders (Antwerp cut off from the sea, half Frog and half Cloggie etc) of any country ever invented. And it can't do anything about them no matter how hard it tries. Its current attempt ("Hey, let's all dissolve our borders and call ourselves the European Union") may or may not work.
East/West Germany also demonstrated the principle. Germany has never become a nation-state because it keeps changing its borders -- or getting them changed by others -- but it is permanent enough (in the west and south) to mean that as soon as east and west could unite they did unite despite ALL the Great Powers being firmly against the idea. (Which they've all conveniently forgotten in the meantime.)
Yugoslavia almost became a nation-state (the rule-of-thumb is the same boundaries for the life-time of the oldest inhabitant) but just as it was coming up to the time, the Croats/ Slovenes/ Montenegrins/ Macedonians all screamed, "No way are we going to be permanently yoked with those Serbian bastards" and with a swish of the wand all was dissolved. The clock starts ticking now to decide whether Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Macedonia (not to mention Serbia herself) become nation-states.
| Are not nation-states self-ruled, by definition? |
Yes. But of course any nation-state can be temporariy occupied and ruled over by somebody else but the nation-state immortality rule means that sooner or later the occupier has to fuck off back to where it came from.
| Would not a self-ruled, well defined area of uniform ethnicity qualify as a nation-state? |
No. It would have to retain the same borders for everybody's lifetime. It does not have to be well defined area of uniform ethnicity to become a nation-state but this characteristic would assist in its formation.
| Does the Beaker state's failure to survive then suggest it was not self-ruled, i.e. was therefore an overseas colony of someone else? |
None of this follows. As far as I know it is is virtually impossible in pre-literate times for any state to be large enough to encompass an entire ethnic group. Non-literate states are almost invariably only as large as one day's horse journey.
| What else is there to nation-statehood? Who has to agree that the criteria obtain? |
There is only one criterion so far as I know: a parcel of self-ruled land that has the same boundaries for everybody's lifetime. There may be some other stuff about consensuality-of-borders but just go with the Golden Rule for now and see where it leads.
| You might have said Beaker England must have been a fluid entity and the illusion of the England/Celtland border is an artefact of the map... |
Sorry, but this is all a Giant Red Herring which it is pointless you pursuing. We just don't know enough about Britain in these times, nor ever shall, to even begin to make statements about permanent borders.
Since no nation-state existed before about the first millenium AD...
That is the question! |
No...you or anybody else is free to produce an example. Until somebody does I will continue to make the statement. After all, nation-states are immensely successful and prone to produce other nation-states so I would think we might have noticed them if there had been any before the first millennium AD.
| Are you saying "look: here they all are" -- a very poor argument -- or "this is how they work" -- a potentially powerful argument? |
The latter.
All nation-states are immortal whether in the presence of others or not.
Please explain. |
England, Scotland, Japan and Korea have all proved immortal on their own (sort of). France, Spain, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have all proved to be immortal alongside others...if you come up with a nation-state that proved not to be immortal whether alone or not alone...sing out!
| Is it impossible to liken them to typewriter typebars: they go up and down indefinitely, just missing each other perhaps; but eventually two come up together, just right to jam and hold each other up indefinitely; and jam every other one that comes up from then on? |
Is this from another thread?
Several thousand years seem preposterous even given that MegalithiCelts were around for that long, or ruling the roost for that long.
Why preposterous, given that MegalithiCelts were around for that long, or ruling the roost for that long? |
OK, OK, I'm not arguing. I've no idea how long these entities lasted and nor does anybody else. But in any case plenty of independent political entities last a long time (the Roman Empire for a coupla thousand years) without being nation-states. Though not immortal, you will note.
| If nation-states really are immortal then you ain't seen nothin' yet. But if they are mutually sustaining only for a handful of millennia then... well... you still ain't seen nothin' yet. How can we judge what is preposterous? |
It's not that nation-states have been around such a long time (though a thousand years is actually quite a long time) but that there have been lots and lots of nation-states of all ages and they have all proved immortal. I cannot speak for the future.
It's true both England and Holland had "their turn" as Great Powers...
I was merely proceeding from left to right, as though after Ireland/Wales (MegalithiCelts) then England as the centres of World Power Regimes, it follows that Holland is up next. |
Well don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
| TheTeslarian wrote: | All this from a fairly accurate description of Simon's nationality by Hatty.
| Hatty wrote: | | ...the English Simon de Montfort, though clearly of French antecedents |
Hatty said he was English/French. Tel claims he was simply French. Therefore Hatty wins the "who is more accurate" competition.
And so do I.
Teslarian grins mischievously and moon-walks out the door. |
I didn't realise I was in a competition. But I never said that Simon de Montfort was purely French, I just said he wasn't English. I just thought that Hatty may have got the 5th and 6th Earls confused, I did for a while. (by the by, I didn't say Hrolf was William's father) but I aint going to bother nitpicking. 'Coz if I did, I could say that it's spelt "dual" not "duel", but that would be immature.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Look youse guys, before you post anything, anything at all, will you please ask yourself, "Is this worth M J Harper's time?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Up until c 1300 England was a big fat zero. She was either a nullity in European politics or actually part of a European empire. |
Before this, Scotland (13th cent.) was a happening place. A 'Golden Age' had developed and propagated under the illustrious reign of Alexander III. It became one of the prime locations in Europe.
Of course, this may be Scottish propaganda. If so, the folks to the south couldn't complain because they were just "a big fat zero".
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Scotland was able to do things to us that France, Spain, Holland and Germany never could! |
Out of interest, has anyone ever looked into the invasions of the Scots into England under Wallace? Our great national hero was a bit of an arse at times. He systematically cleared the whole of Northern England...then returned to do it once again after people had begun to find some semblance of life.
Of course, this may be English propaganda. Just thought I would throw that in there. See what happens. You never know. Can't tell. Worth a try. let's see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The Teslarian wrote: Mick Harper wrote:
Up until c 1300 England was a big fat zero. She was either a nullity in European politics or actually part of a European empire.
Before this, Scotland (13th cent.) was a happening place. |
Is it coincidence that Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290? It's just that Spain's propulsion towards nationhood seems to echo the English scenario; Portugal gained its independence in 1143 and Spain's 'Golden Age' took off after the Moors and Jews were respectively expelled, or at least given the choice 'convert, depart or die'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
Don't tell that to the proponents of the Protocols of Zion. If they get wind of the fact that nations took off only when Jews were expelled we are all up crap-creek!
In all seriousness, it is no coincidence. The years between 1290 and - say - 1320 were remarkable. So many events and so many world changing decisions were being made. The power of the church and its intimacy with (and influence over) Europe's royal families grew to unimaginable dimensions at this time. The last crusade was conducted the year after the Jewish expulsion. The lack of future crusades would have saved a hell of a lot of cash.
Or am I very much mistaken? I am tired and may be talking out of the other end of my bod. This happens occasionally to insomnia suffering, over-worked, un-shaved fellows stuck behind the still existing iron-curtain (AH...a new thread idea - East Germany still exists).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| You should be asking yourself when England became a nation-state ie it acquired its immortal borders. |
The usual response would be 'under the Tudors' - yes, I know it's orthodox and therefore unacceptable, but you have to start somewhere... during the Wars of the Roses immediately preceding Henry VII's accession when families were fighting each other, retainers' loyalty was to the lord or head of the family rather than to "England". The last French possession, Calais, was lost in 1558 under Mary. The threat of invasion undoubtedly reinforces the sense of nationhood.
| There is only one criterion so far as I know: a parcel of self-ruled land that has the same boundaries for everybody's lifetime. |
Doesn't this mean that outsiders also have to take cognisance of the borders? Maybe the real test is what happens when there's no obvious successor to rule the parcel of land and yet it still remains intact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Before this, Scotland (13th cent.) was a happening place. A 'Golden Age' had developed and propagated under the illustrious reign of Alexander III. It became one of the prime locations in Europe. |
What you think of as the Alexandrian Golden Age is just the reward Scotland got for becoming a nation-state. When a territory doesn't have to worry any more about its territorial integrity, it can afford to do all sorts of other things.
| Out of interest, has anyone ever looked into the invasions of the Scots into England under Wallace? Our great national hero was a bit of an arse at times. He systematically cleared the whole of Northern England...then returned to do it once again after people had begun to find some semblance of life. |
Wallace merely discovered (as Edward I, II and many other English and Scottish kings did) the futility of invading a nation-state. Because it has had immortality bestowed on it the invader just mills around for a bit and then has to fuck off back home.
| Is it coincidence that Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290? It's just that Spain's propulsion towards nationhood seems to echo the English scenario; Portugal gained its independence in 1143 and Spain's 'Golden Age' took off after the Moors and Jews were respectively expelled, or at least given the choice 'convert, depart or die'. |
A good point. Making a nation-state is rarely possible by following liberal best-practice. But by the same token Jews in established nation-states are no longer seen as a threat so they just settle down to being slighty bizarre natives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
