The Concept of Nation-State being Determined by Ethnicity

[erupt]

Of course this isn't a Marxist concept, but can someone give me a few links on the concept of nation-state being determined by ethnicity with Western, Marxist, and Anarchist interpretations. I know this is what is attempted with "Nation-Building" if I'm not mistaken; however, I'm referring to every ethnicity being it's own nation-state, however small the locale. Hmong, Zulu, Poles, Mongols, etc.

I am not advocating this in any manner.

I tried searching the internet and here, and I could of made a mistake, but I don't have the time to scour for it; also, because of my time problems, hopefully the articles can be concise if possible due to my hectic schedule (unless old articles and works are of importance).

[tuwix]

I won't give any links because the opinion that nation state is determined by ethnicity is just wrong. You were looking examples and listed Poles and I can show you how that happened.

There were Slavic tribes in territory of present Poland very similar to those in Czech and Slovakia with common language. And emerged a prince. Nobody is sure where he emerged from. But supposition is obvious: he's conquered the territory. And he announced that he is prince of Poland and thusly Poland emerged. And he started to describe that Poland is inhabited by Polish people. And this is how the nation emerged. This nation still didn't differ in anything with Czechs and Slovakians. When he announced a state, there started to emerge differences in opinion with other states and wars. Due to closing of borders there started to emerge different language and different customs. However, there are all just consequences that one guy has announced that there is Poland and Polish people. And this process was similar in the most of European countries.

[erupt]

I won't give any links because the opinion that nation state is determined by ethnicity is just wrong. You were looking examples and listed Poles and I can show you how that happened.

I'd like to stress, again, I'm not advocating this in any manner. If I reject nationalism, why in the world would I want what I was discussing.

I'm only asking if there is a name for it other than "nation-building" in both the Western and Marxist senses.

On a side not, thank you for the historical information, and more of it is welcomed, as well.

[tuwix]

And I've never suspected that you're nationalist. I only stressed that idea that nation build state is wrong because states have been building nations. In Africa, nation is built on base of former colonies. The tribes within one country can hate each other very much by state propaganda says that they're one nation...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I just want to jump in on this to add that "ethnicity" isn't fixed, and the relationship between nation/nation state and ethnicity is often one in which they inform each other: the political/military/legal sovereignty of states is often a determinant of ethnicity as much as the other way around.

I actually highly recommend James C. Scott's "The Art of Not Being Governed" for its exploration of this. It's pretty accessible as far as "heavy" anthropological works go.

[erupt]

I just want to jump in on this to add that "ethnicity" isn't fixed, and the relationship between nation/nation state and ethnicity is often one in which they inform each other: the political/military/legal sovereignty of states is often a determinant of ethnicity as much as the other way around.

Oh, most definitely. The Brits are in fact mostly Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English; the Americans are various nationalities (Polish, Slovak, French, etc.); most Latin Americans are "mestizos", meaning mixed-blood of European (usually Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German, and Italian) and Native-American descent; the Chinese have many ethnic groups, e.g. Uygurs, Han, ethnic Mongols, etc.; Iclanders have ancestry from both Ireland and the Scandinavian nations. I could go on and on.

[goalkeeper]

I won't give any links because the opinion that nation state is determined by ethnicity is just wrong. You were looking examples and listed Poles and I can show you how that happened.

There were Slavic tribes in territory of present Poland very similar to those in Czech and Slovakia with common language. And emerged a prince. Nobody is sure where he emerged from. But supposition is obvious: he's conquered the territory. And he announced that he is prince of Poland and thusly Poland emerged. And he started to describe that Poland is inhabited by Polish people. And this is how the nation emerged. This nation still didn't differ in anything with Czechs and Slovakians. When he announced a state, there started to emerge differences in opinion with other states and wars. Due to closing of borders there started to emerge different language and different customs. However, there are all just consequences that one guy has announced that there is Poland and Polish people. And this process was similar in the most of European countries.

It should be noted though that up until the 19th century, the idea of a being a Pole/being Polish was heavily associated with being a member of the szlachta and the 'political nation' of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, from which peasants were excluded.

[tuwix]

It should be noted though that up until the 19th century, the idea of a being a Pole/being Polish was heavily associated with being a member of the szlachta and the 'political nation' of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, from which peasants were excluded.

Yes and there must be explained that 'szlachta' means 'mobility' and Polish nobility was Polish nation and Lithuanian nobility was Lithuanian nation. And there were moments were peasant were included in the nation concept even in 18th century, for example in Kościuszko uprising.