Claiming land or historical figures as your own?

[bushbush]

We see this often in many discussions...

"X land belongs to us because Y group, which is our ancestor, was there".

"X figure belongs to our nation because he or she was a member of Y group that's our ancestor".

What exactly are these sort of claims based upon? are they valid claims with historical basis or just nationalist non-sense?

if such standard does hold water? what criteria should be there?
i.e:
-who was there first?
-was a direct continuation there?
-continuation in terms of...biological? cultural? social? and etc...

just wnat to get everyone's view on this.

[Sher Khan]

Nationalist nonsense, mostly because the modern concept of state and nation neither existed nor applied to most historical figures. In the case of land, it's usually a matter of one group claiming either to have an ethnic majority or an ethnic hegemony on some contested bit of real estate either continuously or for some period of time - which is just demography by itself - but then turning around and citing these reasons as reasons for why that piece of land belongs to their nation and not someone else's.

It's a common problem for nations that have a specifically ethnic bent to their nationalism and their foundation myths, that some person or piece of land belongs to so-and-so nation because, that nation being the nation of 'insert-ethnic/language-group-here', it is claimed as property by the presence or dominance of their ethnic/language group in the past.

It usually brings forth the ranting and raving about how one group has the sole right to 'claim' whoever and whatever as their own, or how another group 'has no right' to claim otherwise, usually skipping the part on why this is exactly important anyway. Most modern nation-states are beyond such 19th and early 20th century nationalism having had stable borders for many years and enough time to develop a more multi-lingual, multi-ethnic or secular humanist ideals on what is the state and who are its citizens. However, it gains a lot of currency among relatively young nations that, usually having been under communist-socialist domination for the past few decades, revive nationalist sentiments to help redraw the maps that were made during unstable, haphazard times without regard to earlier nationalist movements.

[frontier-auxilia]

Nationalist nonsense, mostly because the modern concept of state and nation neither existed nor applied to most historical figures. In the case of land, it's usually a matter of one group claiming either to have an ethnic majority or an ethnic hegemony on some contested bit of real estate either continuously or for some period of time - which is just demography by itself - but then turning around and citing these reasons as reasons for why that piece of land belongs to their nation and not someone else's.

It's a common problem for nations that have a specifically ethnic bent to their nationalism and their foundation myths, that some person or piece of land belongs to so-and-so nation because, that nation being the nation of 'insert-ethnic/language-group-here', it is claimed as property by the presence or dominance of their ethnic/language group in the past.

It usually brings forth the ranting and raving about how one group has the sole right to 'claim' whoever and whatever as their own, or how another group 'has no right' to claim otherwise, usually skipping the part on why this is exactly important anyway. Most modern nation-states are beyond such 19th and early 20th century nationalism having had stable borders for many years and enough time to develop a more multi-lingual, multi-ethnic or secular humanist ideals on what is the state and who are its citizens. However, it gains a lot of currency among relatively young nations that, usually having been under communist-socialist domination for the past few decades, revive nationalist sentiments to help redraw the maps that were made during unstable, haphazard times without regard to earlier nationalist movements.

I know this is lazy but im just gonna co-sign this 100% as Sher Khan manage to express it with hell a lot more sophisication and academic details then i ever could.

It can indeed be rather retarded. By this standard some ultranationalist chinese (no offense to my fellow mainlanders here, just pointing to some) can make ridiculous claims for every area located from Iran to the caucasus just because the Ilkhanid submitted to Yuan Dadu. If you look at those oil lines running all over those places, its a pretty attractive proposal.

[Exarch]

We see this often in many discussions...

"X land belongs to us because Y group, which is our ancestor, was there".

"X figure belongs to our nation because he or she was a member of Y group that's our ancestor".

What exactly are these sort of claims based upon? are they valid claims with historical basis or just nationalist non-sense?

if such standard does hold water? what criteria should be there?
i.e:
-who was there first?
-was a direct continuation there?
-continuation in terms of...biological? cultural? social? and etc...

just wnat to get everyone's view on this.

i think it's silly that anyone feels entitled to any sort of land based on some sort of tribalistic nationalism, whether old or new.

[nopasties]

Claiming ownership of land or territory is an artificial construct. It serves a purpose of defining who has claim to what. Making claims are meaningless without the might makes right old style politics.

I think people notice these things more because conventional war is somewhat more rare these days. The purpose of the UN and other international organizations is there to provide a means for discussion.

The basis of claims being right or not are somewhat subjective and those subjective interpretations are weighed against political reality.

Nationalization of peoples contributes to the perpetuity of claims and the imposibility of reconciling certain disputes.

[Phalanx300]

Well Jews going en masse into Israel should say enough.

[bushbush]

my view might be a bit cynical...

-reality: power! whoever has the power to occupy a certain piece of land owns it. Elite game.
-construct: convince the public to fight for, defend those lands and serve the interests of the elites - nationalism, history, symbols, and etc.

[gaius valerius]

just wnat to get everyone's view on this.

That's easy... it's all BS It are just tools to serve the purpose of those pulling the strings (or with the ambition to do so...).

[Genius of the Restoration]

It's not necessarily nationalistic. I think it's more broadly a claim to power. By claiming to be part of a community with a respected figure in the past, people try to have some of that rub off on themselves. This is really common. Ancient Greek and Roman myth for instance uses autochthony and descent to claim power, and this is still done by some societies today, except most countries don't claim genealogical descent from a religious figure. They still claim common background though, which fulfils the same desire to give a society something special to hold on to.

[CiviC]

Nations are like families.
If your grandfather was a war hero and he had a piece of land, your father inherited that piece of land then passed it to you and told you stories about your grandfather to make you proud about him, you will claim that land as yours as being the rightfull owner and you will be proud about your grandfather and tell your sons and grandchildren about family heritage.

Nations are the same. They claim lands as being the lands of their ancestors and they had their stories about their ancestors. It's very normal, not "artificial constructs" as someone says.

[bushbush]

Nations are the same. They claim lands as being the lands of their ancestors and they had their stories about their ancestors. It's very normal, not "artificial constructs" as someone says.

the idea of nationhood and nationalism are all recent phenomenons though...if it's normal...y it wasn't there before?

btw, of course i am all for a strong interest for history, especially history of people that have relations with you in history, but claiming past historical figures (who probably don't even have the same idea about nationhood as you) and land as your nation's seems to me like a tool used to mobilize popular support...more or less.

i mean the new "Macedonians" are prime example of such process. I am not saying all other nations have claims as baseless as those people, but the whole idea of claiming land and past figures based on such rationale is flawed.


----------------

as for claiming past figures as greek, maceondian, german bla bla bla....how? How do you claim those people who lived in eras with no similiar idea of nationhood as a part of YOUR nation?

[CiviC]

the idea of nationhood and nationalism are all recent phenomenons though...if it's normal...y it wasn't there before?

Alphabet is a normal thing, but it wasn't always, before was invented and used, because society evolves. Before nations existed ethnies, people with a common language, culture, religion, etc. There was no Greek nation in Antiquity, but every Greek made a distinction between them and Barbarians/ausslander/outsiders/foreigners, etc. In time peoples evolved in nations. Human society evolves.

btw, of course i am all for a strong interest for history, especially history of people that have relations with you in history, but claiming past historical figures (who probably don't even have the same idea about nationhood as you) and land as your nation's seems to me like a tool used to mobilize popular support...more or less.

i mean the new "Macedonians" are prime example of such process. I am not saying all other nations have claims as baseless as those people, but the whole idea of claiming land and past figures based on such rationale is flawed.

In some cases you are right, some claims are baseless.

----------------

as for claiming past figures as greek, maceondian, german bla bla bla....how? How do you claim those people who lived in eras with no similiar idea of nationhood as a part of YOUR nation?

Because lets say Germans claim Arminius as their hero. Arminius was the leader of a Germanic confederation that defeted Romans and prevented them to conquer Germania. There was no German nation then, but Germanic tribes had the sentiment they belong to a common culture and speak similar languages so they united against "the others" the Romans. Those Germanics are the ancestors of present day Germans, I mean not only genetically, but Germans today speak a language that descends from that of their ancestors, live in the same lands, traces of that ancient culture survive maybe in German culture. Can a German today say he has nothing to do with Arminius, that Germanic tribes are totally strangers from Germans today, that there is no difference for a German today between Ancient Germans and Chinese people?

Nations claim ancient heroes that had a contribution to their history. For example Romanians claim the Dacians because Romanians are descendants of Dacians that were conquered and Romanised untill they became Romanian people that after centuries became Romanian nation. French claim Gauls in the same manner : the French are descendants of Romanised Gauls that transformed in the French people then in the French nation. Franks are too claimed by the French because in time the Frank conquerors fusioned with conquered Gallo-Romans and formed the French people. And even before the nationhood, the French as a people were aware they form a diofferent community then those that lived outside the borders of the Kingdom of France.

[bushbush]

Alphabet is a normal thing, but it wasn't always, before was invented and used, because society evolves. Before nations existed ethnies, people with a common language, culture, religion, etc. There was no Greek nation in Antiquity, but every Greek made a distinction between them and Barbarians/ausslander/outsiders/foreigners, etc. In time peoples evolved in nations. Human society evolves.

ya, so you agree the greeks back then and the greeks now are not exactly the same in definition; then wut's the logic of using today's standard of greek nationhood to emcompass the old greeks?

Because lets say Germans claim Arminius as their hero. Arminius was the leader of a Germanic confederation that defeted Romans and prevented them to conquer Germania. There was no German nation then, but Germanic tribes had the sentiment they belong to a common culture and speak similar languages so they united against "the others" the Romans. Those Germanics are the ancestors of present day Germans, I mean not only genetically, but Germans today speak a language that descends from that of their ancestors, live in the same lands, traces of that ancient culture survive maybe in German culture. Can a German today say he has nothing to do with Arminius, that Germanic tribes are totally strangers from Germans today, that there is no difference for a German today between Ancient Germans and Chinese people?

umm....you do know that those "germans" (the ones fightnig the romans) and today's germans are VERY VERY VERY VERY far apart in history....not just in terms of idea on nationhood, but a lot other things....i advise you to look up on that subject a bit, not a very good example.

as for ancient chinese and chinese today, they have relationship as that of continuation. But the chiense in the past saw themselves as a civilization; today chinese see themselves as a nation. Claiming the former as a part of the latter just cuz of the relationship of continuaty is dangerous.

[bushbush]

Nations claim ancient heroes that had a contribution to their history. For example Romanians claim the Dacians because Romanians are descendants of Dacians that were conquered and Romanised untill they became Romanian people that after centuries became Romanian nation. French claim Gauls in the same manner : the French are descendants of Romanised Gauls that transformed in the French people then in the French nation. Franks are too claimed by the French because in time the Frank conquerors fusioned with conquered Gallo-Romans and formed the French people. And even before the nationhood, the French as a people were aware they form a diofferent community then those that lived outside the borders of the Kingdom of France.

what do you think about claiming the land on it cuz of this history (or claiming the figures from gaul as french)...that's actually the question i was asking in the OP...

[CiviC]

what do you think about claiming the land on it cuz of this history (or claiming the figures from gaul as french)...that's actually the question i was asking in the OP...

Vercingetorix, the Gaulish hero, is not claimed as being French (there was no French in those days), but is claimed as part of French history, because you can claim your ancestors as part of your history.

The same for modern Greeks, they have all the right to claim Ancient Greeks, because they are their descendants, they live the same original lands, they share their blod and their language and culture descends from Ancient Greece. Language and culture and society are not the same today in Greece as in Antiquity because they evolved as it's normal, but without Ancient Greeks you can be sure there were no modern Greeks, that's for sure.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Thing is, 'Romania' is just as much a construct as the next nation. A person, such as Stefan cel Mare, has almost nothing to do with the land because it is just land (the exception being environmental factors of course). It is the society on the land that is most influential. Basarabia could be Romanian land, but this only means it is land occupied by the Romanian state. If you can show me something that makes it distictly Romanian through the eons of history I might believe you. But you wont be able to, because that idea is a rather new invention.

If you look at the independence struggle in the Indian subcontinent you can see how this works. There hadn't been any strong sense of 'Indianess' before the arrival of the Europeans. In fact, this nationalism of a separate India came after smaller regional claims, such as pride in being Bengali. This movement developed and became linked to Hinduism to encompass an idea of Indianess. This came much later and was used to give the Indian National Congress (a dead give away in the name there) more control. Nationalism was used for a purpose, as it has been everywhere else. India, like Romania, is what Benedict Anderson would call an 'imagined community'.

Stefan Cel Mare has nothing to do with land because it's just land? Does that even make sense from a grammatical point of view? Basarabia is Romanian land because Romanians live there. I don't see how hard of a concept that is to understand to be honest. Is Basarabia Portugese? What makes Basarabia distinctly Romanian? The language, the culture, the fact that they've been there for thousands of years.

Let me ask you something, was it rather a new invention when Burebista united all the Thracian tribes from which the Romanians draw much of their ancestry from? Or when Mihai Viteazul unified Romania's three lands of "Wallachia", Transilvania and Moldova? It seems that the deconstructive school of thought once again shows itself ignorant of history.

Don't compare us with Indians. For one they don't even speak the same language. There's over 100 different languages there. In Romania from corner to corner every Romanian speaks one language. Show me how Romania was "constructed." Explain to me how Mihai Viteazul knew about modern nationalism over 400 years ago. Explain to me the quotes in my sig, the last 2.

Can you tell me why I should feel proud? They had nothing to do with me at all. I wasn't even born. It really is a bizarre concept.

I don't know, where are you from? Maybe you shouldn't feel proud.

[Genius of the Restoration]

What makes Basarabia distinctly Romanian? The language, the culture, the fact that they've been there for thousands of years.

Language = nation?, culture = nation? Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation. Nationalism requires such a simplification of history that it is ludicrous to say that Romanian is a term that can be applied equally to those who lived "thousands of years" ago to present day Romanian citizens.


[QUOTE}Let me ask you something, was it rather a new invention when Burebista united all the Thracian tribes from which the Romanians draw much of their ancestry from? Or when Mihai Viteazul unified Romania's three lands of "Wallachia", Transilvania and Moldova? It seems that the deconstructive school of thought once again shows itself ignorant of history.[/QUOTE]

I don't know enough about Romanian history. However a quick wiki search has provided this, which has the line

"In the Romantic era, the concept of a national state emerged among the Romanians, as among many other peoples of Europe. Defining themselves against the nearby Slavs, Germans, and Hungarians, the nationalist Romanians looked for models of nationality in the other Latin countries, notably France."

Comparing Romanians to other nations that have multiple languages (such as France) didn't seem to be a problem for them. It also raises the important part of nationalism, that is that it is defined against others. Take an abstract idea and say, 'this is us, nobody else can have these qualities because our nation is really good'.

Don't compare us with Indians. For one they don't even speak the same language. There's over 100 different languages there. In Romania from corner to corner every Romanian speaks one language.

Is Indian nationalism worth less because they don't speak one language?

Explain to me the quotes in my sig, the last 2.

With pleasure.

"We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

I don't get it. What does this prove? Oh that nationalist sentiment stretched back thousands of years! Where? All this quote proves to me is that somebody was preaching nationalism.


"The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

Ditto.

Cadmus, the mythical founder of Thebes, “sowed dragon’s teeth like seeds”[1] and from these sprang the Spartoi who helped found Thebes. The Thebans could make an autochthonous claim that would give them power to rule their land as it was where they had been created. Thebes rebelled against the governance of Alexander “appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side”[2]. The rebellion was put down and Thebes was razed.[3] Nevertheless, the idea that the Greek poleis should have political freedom continued to be expressed. This differs considerably from the claim to power of conquest. In conquest, one group usurps power from another, and this invites another group to do exactly the same to them in return. A belief that ‘might is right’ will only benefit a group as long as they possess sufficient power to retain control. Autochthonous claims can be persuasive in denying outsiders the right to control a society. They are powerful claims that set up an inalienable right of the society that an adversary cannot deny.
[1] Apollod., Bibl., 3.4.23.

[2] Plut., Alex, 11.

[3] Plut., Alex, 11.

These seem remarkably similar. Both utter non-sense as the OP said.

What my ancestors did has everything to do with me, it gives my pride and example, and makes me fight for the same things and ideals maybe. But I guess you don't understand anythig of this. As Australian you have a different background as an European. Maybe if your country would have a history like Europeans have you would think differently.

You fight for the same things? You sure? What exactly am I lacking? Wars on home soil and the noble deeds of nationalistic patriots?

[Manco]

Because lets say Germans claim Arminius as their hero. Arminius was the leader of a Germanic confederation that defeted Romans and prevented them to conquer Germania. There was no German nation then, but Germanic tribes had the sentiment they belong to a common culture and speak similar languages so they united against "the others" the Romans. Those Germanics are the ancestors of present day Germans, I mean not only genetically, but Germans today speak a language that descends from that of their ancestors, live in the same lands, traces of that ancient culture survive maybe in German culture. Can a German today say he has nothing to do with Arminius, that Germanic tribes are totally strangers from Germans today, that there is no difference for a German today between Ancient Germans and Chinese people?

And what about the Dutch, Austrians, Danes, Flemings, English,... Arminius is just as much their predecessor as it is of the Germans. Yet somehow only germany gets to claim him according to you (luckily that's not how it is in the real world)

Nations claim ancient heroes that had a contribution to their history. For example Romanians claim the Dacians because Romanians are descendants of Dacians that were conquered and Romanised untill they became Romanian people that after centuries became Romanian nation. French claim Gauls in the same manner : the French are descendants of Romanised Gauls that transformed in the French people then in the French nation. Franks are too claimed by the French because in time the Frank conquerors fusioned with conquered Gallo-Romans and formed the French people. And even before the nationhood, the French as a people were aware they form a diofferent community then those that lived outside the borders of the Kingdom of France.

And the Franks have barely anything to do with the French as we know them now. The Germans, Dutch and Belgians have at least as much right to claim them. Especially the last two since they actually speak a Frankish language.

With your two supposed examples you actually demonstrated the problems with claiming land and persons instead of demonstrating how simple it is. After all those years you can't just say this nation has the right to claim that guy, that guy used to be blabla, those lands historically belong to us,...

And that's not even mentioning the irrationality of holding pride in something you have zilch to do with, or mentioning the motives behind claiming figures and land who usually aren't just historical interest.

[CiviC]

And the Franks have barely anything to do with the French as we know them now. The Germans, Dutch and Belgians have at least as much right to claim them. Especially the last two since they actually speak a Frankish language.

Beside the fact the country is called France, that langues d'oil are influenced by Frankish, that Franks were the elites that founded the state that would become France, that Capetians/Robertians that ruled untill 1789/1848 were a family of Frankish origin ... I guess you are right.

"the French as we know them now" wouldn't exist without Franks. They even wouldn't be called French.

I'm amazed how many people try to deny the cultural and historical heritage of the nations.

[Carpathian Wolf]

This post modern "anti nationalism" masked as enlightment is mostly touted by those ignorant of history or full of jealousy. I'll give an example. Stefan cel Mare. He's a Romanian. Why should I say he isn't? Why should I say he has nothing to do with this land? Just to be "politically correct"? Why shouldn't I say that Basarabia is Romanian land. Who else would it belong to, but the people there who are Romanian? Nowadays people pretend to be tolerant and this and that by speaking out against "nationalism".

Nationalist nonsense, mostly because the modern concept of state and nation neither existed nor applied to most historical figures. In the case of land, it's usually a matter of one group claiming either to have an ethnic majority or an ethnic hegemony on some contested bit of real estate either continuously or for some period of time - which is just demography by itself - but then turning around and citing these reasons as reasons for why that piece of land belongs to their nation and not someone else's.

It's a common problem for nations that have a specifically ethnic bent to their nationalism and their foundation myths, that some person or piece of land belongs to so-and-so nation because, that nation being the nation of 'insert-ethnic/language-group-here', it is claimed as property by the presence or dominance of their ethnic/language group in the past.

It usually brings forth the ranting and raving about how one group has the sole right to 'claim' whoever and whatever as their own, or how another group 'has no right' to claim otherwise, usually skipping the part on why this is exactly important anyway. Most modern nation-states are beyond such 19th and early 20th century nationalism having had stable borders for many years and enough time to develop a more multi-lingual, multi-ethnic or secular humanist ideals on what is the state and who are its citizens. However, it gains a lot of currency among relatively young nations that, usually having been under communist-socialist domination for the past few decades, revive nationalist sentiments to help redraw the maps that were made during unstable, haphazard times without regard to earlier nationalist movements.

What about you? Aren't you proud of your own historical figures? Or are you going to say no and pretend to be "above all that pettyness." Let's be serious here.