Ethnicity - Ethnic Groups as co-builders with religions of nations. In this part of the book, the standard definitions of the term 'ethnic group', and in relation to it, the terms 'ethnicity', 'nation' and 'nationality' will be reviewed. New definitions will be suggested, though not in the standard fashion used in the last decades of western thinking (hereinafter: The Main Stream). The term 'group of origin', as will be shown, is not defined in writings on the subject of nation, and will be defined here, within the same framework (hereinafter: The Suggested Theory). The unique definitions of these terms will be the basis for the comparison between the United States and Israel, in relation to the phenomenon of 'inter-group help' [this term will be defined in this part of the book through self evidence]. The similarities and the differences between this last term and that of 'favoritism' will be defined, as they will be found partially congruent. All this will lead to a somewhat surprising conclusion regarding the title of this part of the book. The term 'nation', and its definition is not, in itself, crucial to the subject of this part of the book, yet it is indirectly essential, by its connection to the terms 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic group'. It is essential also by its role in differentiating between the term 'ethnic-group' from the term 'group of origin'. These three terms: nation, ethnic group, and group of origin are terms of tangent definitions, and for that reason are the focus of extended discussion in this part of the book. And now to elaborate a little - for the brunt of elaboration will follow in the body of the paper - to pave the way, so to speak, for the extended discussion to follow. This little elaboration contains only the major principles, and no sources of confirmation, for these will come in the body of the paper. The term studied extensively, much more than the other two above, is that of Nation. This part of the book claims that western thinkers of the mainstream have, unknowingly and meaning well no doubt, set a biased definition of the term. This biased opinion at the base of western thinking is partly due to the weak and difficult grasp of western political leaders (some more than others) of the concept of national identity, and to the resulting 'cover-up' approach to the difficulty at hand , when dealing with the subject. This difficulty has arisen from the internal closeness of western countries, their interchangeability in ethnic and 203, matters, and lately the acceptance of English as an international language in many socioeconomic classes. Another cause is the rising apprehension and estrangement - to varying degrees - felt towards Islam and its culture. The two world wars - which were mainly internal struggles within the white, Christian culture (with the Ottoman Empire, China and Japan, as appendages to the conflict) have shocked the Christian world of Europe, and led it to the conclusion that they were largely unnecessary - a kind of inter-familial feud. This uniting of the cultural makeup of the Christian world is comparable with the unifying of the United States after the Civil War. It would appear that national unity can be caused not only by a common enemy, but also by past internal strife. To make a domestic analogy: a couple surviving a terrible fight is stronger in its union. This intimacy within the Christian world means, that whatever the actions of their leaders, its people recognize each other as belonging to the same one (albeit diverse) national framework. With this in mind, one can see the mobilizing of the Christian world that followed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sep 11th 2001, as one more link in a process that began at the end of World War II. Others were the forming of the EU, the warming of Russo-American relations, the break-up of the Soviet Block and the joining of some of its former members in the NATO alliance. There is an assumption, that all British citizens are of one nation undivided by more than one nation, while assuming the same about the French, Germans, Danes, Italians, Dutch, Spaniards etc', despite the local myths of different ethnic identities, religions, of different group histories, of different wars and different futures. These myths may be common to citizens of two different countries, or to the majority of one and the minority of another. Such is the case with Transilvanians of Hungarian descent, who share the same myths of citizens of Hungary, even though Transilvania has been a part of Romania for years. Writing of people under this assumption would be to write within the mainstream. I do not intend to follow this mainstream, even though it is the dominant and respected strain in literature on the subject nowadays. Another problem is that even those who stress the common group origin, or the historical and religious differences within a group, from within the Stream, do not follow the primordial dimensions alone, but, under the influence of the Stream, as Geertz would say, add non-primordial elements to their work. I will therefore stray from devoutly following the Central primordial writing, and only head in its general direction. Conforming to the discussion so far, and to the definition of the term 'Nation' in this part, it should be established at this early stage, that Hungarians living in Hungary, Romanian Transilvania, Slovakia and Serbia, are all part of the same nation. In the same way, French of French descent are a nation (excluding Islamic French citizens of North African descent), Romanians not of Hungarian descent are another nation, the British nation does not include the Catholic Irish of Northern Ireland, despite their British citizenship, and that Palestinian Arabs are not part of the Jewish nation. Every nation is recognized by its unique population of common and historically established ethnic myth, and by its homeland (National Territory). Every nation has its expatriate population, that confirms its association with it by its very will to be part of it. The mainstream, however, is held back by the different concept, that the entire population of every current country in the Christian world in general, and specifically in Europe, is a nation. It will therefore reject the ancient idea of common ethnic myth, history and religion, and seek alternative ideas that conform to its original concept. It is for this reason, that the mainstream will talk about language, problems of inequality within a country, and the recognizing the civilian population as a nation. Civilian population is recognized with nation, and as result, so is the country, as it exists today. Claiming that "the state is the nation", as the mainstream does, is the equivalent of the king of France claiming "the state is me". Any west European holding to this concept, may have as well looked at his neighboring countries, taken stock of their various and diverse elements, and titled them - 'a nation.' This ironic description is not so far from the truth. We are dealing here, with a concept that precedes the scientific gathering of facts, hypothesizing, and arriving at conclusions in this field. This concept has blinded western thinkers to the possibility of nations in Europe before the Reformation. And so, taking their concept with them when examining the rest of the world, they have arrived at the amazing conclusion, that there were no nationalities, or nations, in the world before the European concept of the same. There were no nations in the world earlier than four hundred years ago! This last opinion holds no water. There was a sense of national identity in the Israelites and Jewish people of millennia past. This type of National-Religious Identity was common with the Assyrians, the Amonites, Moavites, Edomites, Phenicians, Hellenists, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Medians, Japanese, Chinese, Hungarians, Armenians, Khazars, Arabs (before Mohamed and after), Poles and countless others. The fact that this type of identity was led by priests, nobles or writers of the time, doesn't change the fact that it prevailed throughout different classes of the same national group. Even today, such identity is widespread, in part, thanks to the relatively high levels of literacy. Those Arabs who stormed new territories on horse-(and camel)-back, were probably not the great thinkers of their society, but they did have a united group identity, along with a myth of their common origins, histories, and goals. The Israelites fled before the Moavites, whose national identity was strengthened by their king Mish'ah's sacrifice of his own son to the (national) god, and the zeal for battle that ensued. Mainstream thinkers were probably familiar with this tale, as it is mentioned in the Old Testament, but were still blinded by their preconceptions. This is but one of many cases where intellectuals have been misdirected by the interests of their time and place. A fine example of such misdirection, caused by the interests of the local government, was Lord Akton, who described the British, and Austro-Hungarian Empires as positive vessels for national identity, as opposed to the nation-state. The ample interest in nation is not just the result of 'The Spring of Nations' of 1848, and its subsequent civil unrest and breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into many ethnic-based nation-states (a term I will discuss further later). This philosophical interest is also the result of the self interests of European rulers, which existed long before 1848, and long after to strengthen their countries by developing a unique country-specific culture in various ways. Unique historical myth was in the best interests of any government. One instrument to this end was the establishment of a country-specific and pro-current-government church to give said government a non-self serving and spiritual aspect. Examples are the establishment of the Anglican Church in England, the adoption of Catholicism in Franco's Spain, or the forming of the 'State Religion', replacing the divine entity with the concept of The State, in other cases. The nurturing of national feeling as a method of government was used well before the Spring of Nations by the Monarchy of France, which enforced the Parisian language on its outlying Gallic provinces. It would appear that the Germanic Saxons dwelled not only in the area known to us as Germany, but also in England and were even the backbone of the feudal monarchy in France. In addition to political maneuverings, the advent of the print industries has had a big effect in establishing common languages in large areas, according to Anderson's research. Seeking bigger profits in establishing a wide range of readership, the industry worked to unify related languages into common languages, which then began to form ideas of common nation within speakers of the same language. Many factors were eventually responsible for the state of affairs in the late 20th century - that of many European countries that are not based of common histories, centuries old, but on groups-of-origin of certain ethnic origin (in the sense of blood-relation in congress with a group religion, language and history which are special and separate from other neighboring groups). In Belgium, the common denominator of both the Flemish and the Volunians is the Catholic faith. Their ethnic backgrounds and languages are different, even though there did exist a brief period of common group history. Britain consists of four groups, three of which are Protestants, with a common language. Their common history is merely average-length on a historical time scale, and the diverse ethnic origins, and the dominance of the English group definitely stand in the way of any feeling of unity. In Germany there is a common ethnicity, but alongside the ruling Protestantism there is a significant Catholic population. Group history is not homogenous, and filled with many splits along the time line of government. Despite the unified German language and culture there is a certain inter-mingling with the English ethnic background. The north and south of Spain are ethnically very different, as are the corresponding regions in Italy. Scandinavia has a common group history, but is split by differences in language and culture. Western Europe can be seen as one culture, divided only by its myriad languages, and that used to be, before the Reformation, a single Catholic entity, under a central, Latin-speaking leadership. The split has ensued in the ruling and priest classes, rather than in the masses. These two leading castes, along with other interest groups (a prominent one was the print industry) are the ones who designed the national diversity, solidified the separate governmental frameworks, and convinced the masses of their national uniqueness, based in political guidelines. True, the Protestant churches have led the masses to believe in recognizing their own history and uniqueness within their state framework. In England, and later in Britain, there formed a unique identity of being 'the chosen' people, and of a 'divine mission' of 'the free man' to involved himself in government via parliament. The existence of a national-religious enemy: the Catholic French was no less important in forming this identity, than Protestantism itself. In this respect, the English (and later the British) 'nations' were built 'from the bottom', rather than by governmental direction or by the interests of the printing industry. Reading the Bible had become a hallmark of British culture, not because the print shops were seeking profit by printing it in English, but vise versa, the printing industry, as an effect, rather than a cause, profited by this English habit. In the same sense, the wars on the invading Catholic French, were not part of some 'scheme' of a monarch seeking to solidify his/her rule by unifying his/her subjects under the flag of war. Nationality is a belief of the members of a group who define themselves as a nation, and who seek autonomous political rule in a specific territory. This definition is only legitimate if this subjective belief stems from objective factors that 'grew from the bottom' in a spontaneous fashion. This growth must happen on a long-enough period on a historical time-line, with the framework of a group ethos of the existence of common origins [which is the Ethnic Ethos, on which I will elaborate later]. In addition, it is preferable that there be common cultural factors, such as a common religion, and that along said historical time-line, the aforementioned group have a common goal, and even a common enemy. One last condition, is that these historical conditions be relevant in the present, and are expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Once again, this is not the popular definition in the accepted literature on the subject of nation and nationality. I disagree with said literature, and feel free to dispute it, even though I may quote from it occasionally, for the simple reason that it was heavily influenced by the interests of western culture, from whence it comes. It will be necessary for me to analyze this main stream of literature, before I dispute it, but after disputing and justifying the dispute, I shall be free to carve out new definitions, by the strength of my explanations. In light of the new understanding I will propose, that of the above 'growing from beneath' view of true nation, the definition must be complete, with regard to the ethos of a common origin, as an ethnic ethos. This will bring us to understanding ethnicity, and the definition of an ethnic group, as well as a group-of-origin (which resembles an ethnic group but lacks the ethnic element). Western writings on the subject of nation, have always used the term 'ethnic group' within the context of 'nations', and therefore I will not follow its example, as I reject the popular definition of a 'nation' [ not including the primordial current, which may share some common terms with my work]. Considering the essential connection between the definition of 'nation' and ethnic ethos, and considering that this definition implies that an 'ethnic group' is one seeking independent governmental definition, it becomes self-evident, that the difference between a 'nation' and an 'ethnic group', is that an ethnic group is a group with a common origin ethos, and which does not seek self-rule within a specific territory. Seeking such self rule would turn the ethnic group into a nation. To put it in a mathematical way: Ethnic Group = Nation - Will for Independent Statehood. In other words, a nation that loses its will for independent statehood, becomes an ethnic group. So considering the reality of Europe's economic union, it can be said that once France loses its coin, it will also lose its ability to run separate foreign or defense policies, other then those of the EU, and bend its laws irreversibly to the regulations of the common European market. It will become an ethnic group. An ethnic group is a group, whose members believe in their unique common origin. As mentioned above' if it develops a longing for self-governance, it becomes a nation. But what about those who believe in a common origin, but do not see themselves as separate from other groups with other origins? If it is inconceivable that any of them wish for separate self governance, they become one nation, or one ethnic group. One nation (or group) which is divided internally into different groups of origin. An excellent example is that of the Israeli citizens of different ethnic origins, such as Romanians, Moroccans, Yemenites and Poles. All live in Israel and consider themselves a part of the Jewish Nation. A single ethnic group, a single nation - despite its diverse origins. It seems to me, that since it is unlikely that Jews of Romanian origin would ever wish to form a self governing entity within - but separate of - the state of Israel, they should be considered a group of origin, and not an ethnic group. A special question is raised by the status of the different immigrant peoples which form the citizenry of the United States, and who see themselves as members of the American Nation. They are unlikely to ask for self governance, and therefore should be considered to be groups of origin, rather than ethnic groups. Yet the contact which they keep with their countries of origin is quite different from that of Romanian Jews living in Israel. Romanian immigrants do not consciously consider Romania as their nation-state, nor do they feel they have changed their nation by immigrating to Israel, for they see themselves as having been members of the Jewish Nation before their immigration. In this they are different from Christian Romanians naturalized in the US, who have changed their nationality in the process. In this part of the book, we will discuss weather these American groups are ethnic groups or just groups of origin.