Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why was ethnic nationalism more popular in Europe than it was in other areas in the 19th and 20th centuries?
To illustrate what I'm talking about, you can think of the various national unification movements as well as separatist movements in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some examples of successful national unification movements in Europe during this time were the German unification movement, Italian unification movement, Serbian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918), and Romanian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Greater Romania in 1918). Meanwhile, some successful separatist movements in Europe during this time were the Polish separatist movement, the Czechoslovak separatist movement, the Baltic (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Finnish) separatist movements, the Albanian separatist movement, and the various separatist movements which resulted in the break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia near the end of the 20th century.
This map does an excellent job demonstrating the success of creating various ethno-states in Europe over the last 200 years:
As you can see, many ethnic groups in Europe have at least one ethno-state--with some ethnic groups (such as Germans, Romanians, and Albanians) having more than one ethno-state.
Also, what is interesting is that it were Europeans who brought the concept of an ethno-state to both Palestine and Central Asia. After all, European (Ashkenazi) Jews were the ones who were primarily pushing for the creation of a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine and it was European Bolsheviks who divided Central Asia along ethnic lines--something which ultimately resulted in the creation of independent ethno-states in Central Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
In contrast to Europe and Europeans, ethnic nationalism appears to have been less successful in some other parts of the world. For instance, multi-ethnic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and various African countries have--at least so far--avoided breaking up along ethnic lines like Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union previously did. Plus, Pan-Arabist attempts to create a unified Arab state and Somali nationalists' attempt to create a Greater Somalia both ended in failure. (Now, compare that to the success of the Italian and German unification movements.)
In turn, this raises an interesting question:
Why exactly do you think that ethnic nationalism was more popular in Europe than it is in some other parts of the world?
Indeed, does anyone here have any thoughts in regards to this question of mine?
Why was ethnic nationalism more popular in Europe than it was in other areas in the 19th and 20th centuries?
To illustrate what I'm talking about, you can think of the various national unification movements as well as separatist movements in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some examples of successful national unification movements in Europe during this time were the German unification movement, Italian unification movement, Serbian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918), and Romanian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Greater Romania in 1918). Meanwhile, some successful separatist movements in Europe during this time were the Polish separatist movement, the Czechoslovak separatist movement, the Baltic (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Finnish) separatist movements, the Albanian separatist movement, and the various separatist movements which resulted in the break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia near the end of the 20th century.
This map does an excellent job demonstrating the success of creating various ethno-states in Europe over the last 200 years:
As you can see, many ethnic groups in Europe have at least one ethno-state--with some ethnic groups (such as Germans, Romanians, and Albanians) having more than one ethno-state.
Also, what is interesting is that it were Europeans who brought the concept of an ethno-state to both Palestine and Central Asia. After all, European (Ashkenazi) Jews were the ones who were primarily pushing for the creation of a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine and it was European Bolsheviks who divided Central Asia along ethnic lines--something which ultimately resulted in the creation of independent ethno-states in Central Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
In contrast to Europe and Europeans, ethnic nationalism appears to have been less successful in some other parts of the world. For instance, multi-ethnic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and various African countries have--at least so far--avoided breaking up along ethnic lines like Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union previously did. Plus, Pan-Arabist attempts to create a unified Arab state and Somali nationalists' attempt to create a Greater Somalia both ended in failure. (Now, compare that to the success of the Italian and German unification movements.)
In turn, this raises an interesting question:
Why exactly do you think that ethnic nationalism was more popular in Europe than it is in some other parts of the world?
Indeed, does anyone here have any thoughts in regards to this question of mine?
In short, timing. In the 19th century you saw nationalism as a response to the Napoleonic wars as people increasingly challenged royal rule. Territorial acquisitions (imperialism) bred national unity and most importantly put the pressure on Germanic and Italian states to unify before they were overpowered by their neighbors.
Why was ethnic nationalism more popular in Europe than it was in other areas in the 19th and 20th centuries?
To illustrate what I'm talking about, you can think of the various national unification movements as well as separatist movements in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some examples of successful national unification movements in Europe during this time were the German unification movement, Italian unification movement, Serbian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918), and Romanian unification movement (culminating in the creation of Greater Romania in 1918). Meanwhile, some successful separatist movements in Europe during this time were the Polish separatist movement, the Czechoslovak separatist movement, the Baltic (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Finnish) separatist movements, the Albanian separatist movement, and the various separatist movements which resulted in the break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia near the end of the 20th century.
This map does an excellent job demonstrating the success of creating various ethno-states in Europe over the last 200 years:
As you can see, many ethnic groups in Europe have at least one ethno-state--with some ethnic groups (such as Germans, Romanians, and Albanians) having more than one ethno-state.
Also, what is interesting is that it were Europeans who brought the concept of an ethno-state to both Palestine and Central Asia. After all, European (Ashkenazi) Jews were the ones who were primarily pushing for the creation of a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine and it was European Bolsheviks who divided Central Asia along ethnic lines--something which ultimately resulted in the creation of independent ethno-states in Central Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
In contrast to Europe and Europeans, ethnic nationalism appears to have been less successful in some other parts of the world. For instance, multi-ethnic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and various African countries have--at least so far--avoided breaking up along ethnic lines like Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union previously did. Plus, Pan-Arabist attempts to create a unified Arab state and Somali nationalists' attempt to create a Greater Somalia both ended in failure. (Now, compare that to the success of the Italian and German unification movements.)
In turn, this raises an interesting question:
Why exactly do you think that ethnic nationalism was more popular in Europe than it is in some other parts of the world?
Indeed, does anyone here have any thoughts in regards to this question of mine?
In my understanding, it was an absence or a lack of a coherent culture or religion to bind them together. Hence they turned to language/ethnicity. Even the Nazi Aryan nonsense was a result of the lack of historical relevance for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
