National states (was Re: Colectives...)

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
Fecha: Lunes 28 de Septiembre de 1998 02:20


>Carlos Thompson wrote:
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, "people" is
>> both a plural and a colective, and usually takes the plural form of a
verb:
>> "people are..."
>
>Here's the rule:
>
>(1) When used without any article, it means people in general, and uses
>a plural verb always..  E.g. "People often find conlanging strange."
>
>(2) When used with an article, it means something nearly equivalent
>to "tribe" or "ethnicity", and in this function is a count noun (i.e., it
may
>add the plural -s ending, with the verb agreeing with whatever number
>the noun is as indicated by that ending).  E.g., "The peoples of Europe
>have long suffered political and social division." or "The French people
>has long prided itself on its cultural achievements" or something like
that.
>
>> Colombia is hardly an national state, as Canada or the United States are
not
>> or as France and Germany are.  (Colombian nationality is defined by the
>> country, not the country after the nationality.)
>
>I would think many people in all of those countries would disagreewith you.
(Consider:
>the viritual cultural homogeneity of the US
>and Canada, both internally, and between themselves; and then
>the various centrifugal forces that pull away from the nation states
>of Germany and France:  in Germany you have the Bavarians,
>the Swabians, the Franconians, the Prussians, the Hessians, and
>so forth, while in France you have the Basques, the Bretons, the
>the speakers of Occitan in the South, in short, quite a lot of diversity
>which is unexpected)
>
Well, the nation(ality) issue is a very complex one.  When France was formed
as a kingdom and then as a republic, some sense of being French existed.
The same occured in U.S.A.  That sense involved identification with a
language, with a culture, with a religion.  It didn't mean all the peoples
in what became French territory did agree with that, nor that the State
formation where a pacific one.  There are still many nation(alitie)s without
a state of their own, either they want it or not: Basques, Kurds,
Iroquesses, Tutsis, etc.

Most Affrican countries, by other way, are pure artificial.  Ethnicities and
nation(alitie)s match with countries borders much less than in Europe,
bacause borders where administrative divisions of the European rulers.  As
the culture of the rules didn't prospere, the African tribes and nations are
splited over borders, and countries are splitted into nations, in a very
complex way.

In the Americas, divisions where administrative also.  When emancipation
Spain had four Viceroyalties, several Provinces and Capitanies.  After
emancipation all viceroyalties formed countries and some Provinces and
Capitanies joined thos countries or formed their owns.  (Cartagena went with
Nueva Granada in what now is Colombia, Venezuela is a Country of their own).
After the Spanish culture where so dominant, most people in Colombia can
identify themselves as Colombians, but there is much less difference between
a Pastuso, from Suthern Colombia, and an Ecuadorian, than between the
Pastuso and the Costeqo (Colombian Caribean): both in race and dialect (amog
other differences).  So, clearly, the nationality follows the state.


So: when France appeared, there were Francs or French (I don't know exactly)
who found an state and grouped other related peoples (peacefully or not).
When Deutchland was founded, many related nationalities, with common or
close speech, where joined by the Prussians, and a state was formed
(religion was not a big obstacle here), all those small German states,
identified themselves with a language, and some mithical/historical past.

Similar histories can be said about Spain, Italy, Portugal.  I don't know
the exact case of England but I supouse some simmilarity.

There were, maybe, some American feeling in the founders of the United
States which can be similar with an "American" nationality.  But most US
people, share a culture and a language adquired when their parents came to
the land.  Any how, there are many Afro-Americans, Italo-Americnas,
Irish-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos, Chiness, and so on.

And the only thing you must fullfit for being concidered a Colombian, when
you, as foreigne, live in Colombia is speaking Spanish (even if with heavy
accent) and saying you love Colombia.  (Adquiring passport is another
story.)

-- Carlos Th