- 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 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. Summery:
The definition and understanding of the term Nation: Considering
that a nationality is based on what people feel, one should
award emotion-based factors, and especially ethnicity and
religion, a leading place in the definition of the term
'nation', and its understanding. A nation - it would seem
- is an ethnic group that forms a desire for political independence
within a certain territory, to which it is historically
and emotionally attached. By this definition, the Curds
in Turkey and Iraq, the Irish in Northern Ireland, the Chechens
in Russia, the Albanians in Kosovo, the Muslims in Cashmere
and the Thamilians in Sri Lanka (or Ceylon), are all nations.
