The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Liberation is nice, but it doesn't outweigh the rest. The Czechs, Hungarians, and Slovaks only have the latter part of this history, so less suspicion. (The Hungarians got the Russians in 1848, but they left immediately and two decades later they got the Ausgleich)
It is interesting that you write about these things that happened to Poland as very real and significant, whereas in an earlier exchange you said, "All nations are social constructs. Period." The usual view in philosophy is that either you are given an access to reality through your individual experience (this is empiricism), or reality is "socially constructed", in which case there are many different, equally valid (or invalid) realities. The philosopher who worked out how social constructs can be objectively true was Hegel. So I would suggest that you look at him more carefully than you have up until now. That would allow you to view the experiences of Poland as objectively true, while still being social constructs.
I might as well mention at this point that both my parents are Russian and were born in Russia soon after the revolution, although they grew up outside the Soviet Union. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
Virtually everyone in Europe and the US has some sort of national identity, and that includes those who dislike the whole category. Take DoDo for example, his feelings about Horthy or Kossuth are, I am certain, of a different nature than about Antanas Smetona or Garibaldi. On the other hand a few centuries ago most Europeans had no such identity. National identity is a relatively new phenomenon. At the same time most had some sort of estate consciousness, most don't now.
Well, I must admit I don't have much feelings regarding Horthy, but Kossuth is another thing, but that's probably because I am related to him. I don't know Antanas Smetona, but do Garibaldi, and until a year ago better than all 1956 revolutionaries, which says something. The single historical figure I must have read the most on is Jeanne D'Arc.
I'd say yes there is an over-representation of historical/cultural influences in me of the places I have been longer at, and that much of these influences were nationalised (e.g. a state TV, a dish provided...), but to call that a national idenity, I think is forced. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe I'm reading things into what you write, but my impression is that it is there, even if in an attenuated, rejected form. As the what it should be called - I don't know. Presumably at least as a child you felt Hungarian to some extent as the default, almost automatic way children assume things. That wouldn't necessarily been the case with Germanness as a foreigner, though it could have been (I have no way of knowing).
In my case, while I developed a strong feeling of attachment to Geneva and to French culture in the broadest sense of the word, to the extent of feeling a sense of being at home when I visited Quebec in college, I never got any Swiss or French national identity - I was always a foreigner.
I will reply in three directions.
The first 'default' I personally felt was actually something else, as I gained self-consciousness when in Yugoslavia. (One of my first surviving memories of thoughts is actually looking out of the window and thinking that 'this is my homeland'.) Later on, I did develop a feeling of Hungarianness, albeit not as default but school education and partly family, and the rejection (not of Hungarianness but the whole frame of reference) started to kick in very early (first grade, effects of thinking about some books I read). I never could 'do' collective pride and shame even to the extent you describe, though I discovered that I have more of it than realised, as Euro-booster (back when I battled freepers).
I mention that what I diary or comment on ET is not a random selection of thoughts. I do aspire to bring unique material, or to cover things not covered, be it trains or obscure history or local politics. Given the current readership of ET, within the scope of my cultural influences, that also makes me the reporter for Hungary. And thus writing stuff is usually also an educational experience for me, and funnily enough, I never learnt as much about all things 'Hungarian' than when searching for stories or researching for ones I found in the last year and half...
On a second level, my case of having lived within multiple 'nations' and thinking about categorisations as small kid rather than torture hamsters may be not common, but I view the more general 'objective' identities (say Polish-speaking intelligentsia) vs. sense of identity issue you described differently. I do think that there are multiple collective identities in most people's minds, to the extent of feeling pride and shame and having in-group/alien distinctions and codewords and solidarities, even if they are 'aware' of only a singular national identity. So I see casting things in the national framework as a deeper denial (or more generously, oversimplification) than just of differing individual senses of a nation by the same name. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 2 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 21 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 18
by gmoke - Jan 18
by Oui - Feb 7
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 65 comments
by Oui - Feb 56 comments
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 33 comments
by Oui - Feb 35 comments
by Oui - Feb 112 comments
by Oui - Feb 1
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 312 comments
by Oui - Jan 29
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2815 comments
by Oui - Jan 281 comment
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 267 comments
by Oui - Jan 25