Re: a discussion on OIT: attention moderator

--- Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Unfortunately, that ideology might be what upholds
> the group of the
> > proponent in question, and giving up the belief
> will make it crash.
> > Look what happened in the socialist block after
> they gave up the
> > doctrine. It's all more complicated than you would
> like to believe.
> > Linguistics is a dangerous thing. Most East
> European nations owe their
> > existence to it.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
> >
>
> Could you please explain what you mean by saying
> that most East
> European nations owe their existence to linguistics?
> I have always
> understood linguistics to mean the study of language
> -- how can that
> figure in the history of East European languages?
> Obviously you are
> referring to something else such as linguistic
> identity perhaps, but I
> can't figure out what you mean. Could you explain?
>
> Andrew
>

He's referring to the Wilsonian ideal of a nation for
every linguistic group --i.e. language = ethnicity.
Slavic states were carved out on this this after WWI.
And many of these disintegrated into even smaller
states, principally based on language. And even
Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia claim to speak Bosnian,
Croatian and Serbian. The USSR also identified
ethnicity with language --with the exception of its
Jewish citizens, who were singled out as a religious
group in a nation that disavowed religion.