From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu> Subject: M-I: nationalism cyberseminar Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:48:16 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) I agree with Louis Godena probably more than he thinks. Nevertheless, several observations on the nationalism question in both the US and the USSR. Curiously I see some parallels as well as differences. In both states there was traditionally a dominant ethnic group (WASPS in the US and Great Russians in the USSR) that imposed its language on all the various national, racial, and ethnic groups within the state (Bismarck once said that the most important fact of the nineteenth century was that English was the official language of the US rather than German, even though German immigrants outnumbered Engish ones.) In both states there was an irony in that many people identified as being of the dominant group actually had very mixed ethnic backgrounds. Thus many WASPS have lots of Scottish, Welsh, Scotch-Irish, Irish, German, Native American, African American, French, Dutch, Spanish, and numerous other nationalities in their ancestry. But they were "successfully assimilated." Likewise in the USSR (and its successor states today) many "Great Russians" (as defined by their passport identities) had/have very mixed ancestries: Polish, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Tatar, Jewish, German, and so forth. Lenin himself was viewed as the very model of the New Soviet Man in that he was of a very mixed background with no group predominating, although he was a Russian speaker and clearly thus "successfully assimilated." Although there was some tendency in both nations for people of "pure" ruling nationality background to be in ruling elites, this was and is hardly a complete generalization. In both states the national, racial, ethnic groups that were most clearly oppressed and also tend to be disproportionately represented in the working class and among the poor more generally tended to be those that were conquered or enslaved during the periods of expansion by the dominant group. Both imperial Russia and the US experienced "frontier expansion" in which other national groups were conquered. In the USSR these would become the constituent republics, with a few exceptions. In the US this was the Native Americans, the partly Native American derived Hispanics of Mexico and Puerto Rico, and the African Americans with their special legacy of slavery. That Stalin would pursue the black belt strategy was not at all surprising, given the world situation at the time. Inside the USSR there was this curious interplay between "socialism in one country" and the suppression of nationalities through a sort of "proletarian internationalism" declared within the socialist one country. Louis G. may not see a contradiction there, but I see at least a partial one. BTW, Garvey was hardly the first "back to Africanist." An earlier movement began in the 1820s and culminated in the 1840s with the establishment of Liberia in West Africa, technically independent, but long a de facto colony of the US. Until the relatively recent takeover by Samuel Doe, the ruling elite of Liberia was derived from the small group of African Americans who "went back" and took over. The odd quaintness of the origins of this group shows in that the so-called "Americo-Liberians" ruled through a political party known as the "True Whig Party" and also maintained control through a group of Masonic orders. So much for Back to Africa movements. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005