Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[EQandcivfanatic]

I agree completely with luckymoose in respect to the USA, though it's not really relevant to the Confederate topic.

 

[Crezth]

The Soviet Union was a state based on anti-nationalist marxism, and the moment that the threat of violence stopped being a unifying force, it dissolved into its component parts.

Are you joking?

 

[spryllino]

Yeah, so, anti-nationalism isn't a unifying force. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If France was based on anti-nationalist principles, then the first thing it'd do would be to dissolve itself.

The Soviet Union was a state based on anti-nationalist marxism, and the moment that the threat of violence stopped being a unifying force, it dissolved into its component parts.

I think Crezth, above, puts it well.

But it's all irrelevant really; the fact is, that a state unified by anti-nationalism did survive and prosper, semi-democratically or democratically run, for sixty or seventy years, in the CI world. As I say, then, within the world it clearly does work. If you have a problem with that, that's EQ's to discuss, not mine - and if I'm wrong, I think we have to work with it to move on, rather than retconning in a unifying principle that everyone explicitly denied at the time.

I needed to point this out for CI, based on some players assuming things about history.

In OTL, yea, the US has this. But I think an important question to ask, and one all the players in the US in CI are ignoring, except maybe TheMeanestGuest, is that the US in CI was a terrible military dictatorship and didn't have the same civic nationalist building or luck of OTL to hold the damned thing together. Throw in three civil wars to rip the place to pieces for not just ideologies, but regional nationalism (like New England or Florida or Jacksonia) and you've got a Union that shouldn't exist. The USA of OTL is extraordinarily lucky and there is none of this luck in CI. The continent is huge, and the people in Florida or Jacksonia or even New England couldn't give a damn about something five thousand miles away when millions upon millions of civilians and soldiers have perished consistently to fight off reunification.

The USA is not an automatic entity because you say so. History has to go a very specific way for the place to hold together and be happy friends, and in CI it hasn't.

The Confederation, on the other hand, probably was until its fall, and maybe still is, this world's main paradigm of federal government. It's maybe a bit analogous to the OTL USA, to which wasn't J.K. comparing it? I completely agree, though, that TTL USA would be a somewhat unsuitable comparison.

@Spry:

You are rather straw-manning the pro-Confederate "nationalist" conception I've forwarded thus far (which as I should note, I neither endorse nor attack - I merely think it's the logical consequence of Confederate/French history). This is not a sudden reversal, it would have began at the end of the Rhine-Rhone War, when it became abundantly obvious that the threats of violent ethnic separatism (German/Italian Brotherhoods) as well as the violence of other states claiming ethnic marginalization because of the policy of anti-nationalism, could not be addressed by simply MORE anti-nationalism.

When I suggest that there exists a Confederate nationalism, it's not because I expect Confederates to refer to themselves as nationalists (at least not at this time), but that in all basic functions it is a kind of nationalism that co-exists with the regional-national identities of the Confederation's member states. What makes the Confederation special is that it's nationalism is inherently built to defy all the problems of nationalism (which the old Confederation's anti-nationalist policies were trying to combat).

War between competing ethnicities, tension within states between such groups, discrimination, nonsense stereotyping, and thuggery by rebel nationalists, are all problems that a Confederate identity, even if itself a nationalism, still addresses, by making peace, security, democracy, secularism (in short, liberal democratic civic goals) it's primary solidarity, over simple ethnicity.

Septembrists can, without being inconsistent, still violently argue against (ethnic) nationalism in general, while being patriotic for their own Confederate nationalism, because this Confederate nationalism is designed expressly to fight those basic problems of other nationalisms.

Final note: again, this is purely analysis of what I consider to be a valid, and probably popular, self-conception of Confederate identity. It would follow from this, that a kind of inclusive multiculturalism could flourish, in which regional-national identities are recognized, but subsumed under a more noble Confederate identity (again, merely a hypothesis).

I agree that there's something in what you're saying; there does need to be a sort of Confederate identity, and in the past there manifestly has been a Confederate identity - based on the very liberal democratic goals you indeed mention - which can be, and probably needs to be, strengthened. I nevertheless maintain that it is probably implausible that the people of the Confederation will, at any point in the future, without some very good reason, themselves come to believe that this identity is sufficiently analogous to nationalism that they themselves are willing to call themselves a nation, or talk about their own pride in their identity as nationalism.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Now don't throw the ball into my lap, I never agreed that the First Confederation was built on anti-nationalism. If anything I'd argue that it was formed similarly to the new one, on ideals, but also out of pragmatism. The First Confederation consisted of nations (and was itself) with monarchs who still retained a substantial amount of power. It certainly is not as liberally based in ideology as the new one is, but I'd argue that it was a collective decision among individuals for mutual protection and prosperity than anything else. All of the entities within the First Confederation were very independent, and remain so today. For Americans, I'd say these were nations more akin to our Articles of Confederation US than they were to the Constitution-based US. The nations which entered the F-B Confederation were more self-interested or their governments were subjugated pawns of a larger entity, i.e. Orleans or Switzerland. The Second Confederation is one in which all are willing participants and rallying around an ideal state, while still viciously maintaining independence within (just ask Stockholme what hoops I'm making him jump through just to do pensions and healthcare). You could possibly even theorize that the Second Confederation may not be able to withstand a member state electing a conservative government. Whether or not that's the case, however, we'll see.

I will agree that the central government of the F-B Confederation DID develop an anti-nationalism philosophy, mostly out of the above mentioned pragmatism. The core of my argument, however, is that the Confederation's anti-nationalism was a symptom of the creation, and not the foundation of it.

 

[Luckymoose]

The Confederation, on the other hand, probably was until its fall, and maybe still is, this world's main paradigm of federal government. It's maybe a bit analogous to the OTL USA, to which wasn't J.K. comparing it? I completely agree, though, that TTL USA would be a somewhat unsuitable comparison.

Oh, I wasn't joining his conversation. I was just looking for an excuse to say some things to some players that don't seem to understand them very well. Carry on.

 

[spryllino]

EQ: Oh yes, I absolutely agree with that analysis. I'm not throwing the ball into your lap at all; I'm throwing the ball at Shadow and telling him to throw it at you if he must continue his statements about how the Confederation must have been based on nationalistic principles. It's absolutely true that the Confederation's nationalism was entirely a product of its method of formation and a symptom of the kinds of people who founded it, i.e. anti-nationalistic kings, above all.

That doesn't, however, in any way cancel out the fact that this anti-nationalistic ideology, as you note, was developed, and to a sufficient degree that it would be a volte-face for the new Confederation to adopt an opposing ideology - even if this second ideology were only apparently, rather than in fact, opposing. It also doesn't change the fact that, contrary to what Shadow asserts - regardless of what the Confederation was based on, whether anti-nationalism or sheer pragmatism - the Confederation has never been held together by nationalistic principles.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

What I'm arguing is that the anti-nationalism was a political philosophy by the leaders of the nation, but the issue seems to be to me that it was expressed as an ideology held by the people of the Confederation, which is not the case. The people of the first Confederation did not exactly feel an "anti-nationalism" as the revolts and unrest in Switzerland can certainly attest to. If I'm misunderstanding the argument, disregard.

 

[spryllino]

Well, there must have been a fair body of people who subscribed at least in essence to the ideology, i.e. that presumably large part of the Septembrist voters who weren't (a) Burgundian Germans or (b) merely convinced that the conservatives were incompetent based on the Great War. Also, those now wanting to restore the Confederation and looking upon it as a good thing in its time would also probably hold that most of what went with it, including its basic anti-nationalism, was a good thing too, unless French people in CI have a remarkably strong ability to separate the Confederation qua pragmatic union and the Confederation qua ideology.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

What I'm saying is that no average person would really say, "Yes, I'm anti-nationalist." In fact, my argument is that the average Septembrist, then and now, would identify themselves as, for example, a Norman first, and a Confederate second. That's not to say they would support a Norman nationalist uprising, but when it comes to identity, the people in the First Confederation saw themselves by their nation, not as Confederates. That's the case with the Second Confederation to a degree, it's an ideological unity, and people still have national identities, but it does not, for the time being, supplant the ideological one, and I do feel that the best OTL comparison for similar attitudes is the USA between 1789 and 1861.

 

[spryllino]

That's fair enough; I can agree with you there - but that doesn't justify the notion of any existing or future Confederate unity being called nationalism, as J.K. Stockholme has seemed to imply in part; nor does it justify (and indeed it goes against) Shadow's notion that the Confederation cannot exist except on account of French nationalism.

I do suspect, though, that the competing identities of a Frenchman would probably undermine all three of his loyalties. Every Frenchman has in him three possible identities, any of which he might choose to supress according to his personal preferences - but, in determining what he is, he is probably unlikely to come very firmly to a conclusion at all about what he is first and foremost, I would say, out of the choice of loyalty to his region, to the Confederation, and to the always-existent possibility, presumably still adopted by many, of calling himself French. I think that the combination of the identity "French" and the identity "Confederate" must have caused a fairly substantial erosion of local identities - especially as in the era where, in modern times, nationalism most came to the fore as a political movement, the mid-nineteenth century, those who did call themselves nationalists called themselves "French" - and the effect of this, I would think, is that these local identities are weaker, and in some parts, if not all, of the Confederation it would be of dubious sense to call them "national" identities at all.

I would say, for instance, that your average Burgundian Frenchman towards the end of the First Confederation would have said either, "I'm Confederate first, Burgundian second, and French third", or "I'm Confederate first, French second, and Burgundian third", and that in that most central part of the Confederation it would have been a relatively rare person to say "I'm Burgundian first". The same probably goes for Paris and for Orleans, I'd say - and that's a very substantial proportion of the First Confederation's population. In those parts, I would say that for sure "Parisian", "Orlean-ite-ist-or-whatever-the-right-ending-is", and "Burgundian" were not really national identities as such - just regional ones.

In Normandy, though, maybe above all, and perhaps in Poitou and Dauphiné, what you say is probably right - but I still think that the attitive effect of the other two possible identities would have had a significant and lasting impact on the willingness of the average citizen thereof to say absolutely unequivocally, "I am Norman and nothing else", and is also probably significant enough that, in many cases at least, it may be inaccurate or hyperbolic to say, "The majority of Normans had a national Norman identity". I think they probably had a regional Norman identity that was undoubtedly more important to them in the majority of cases than their other identities - but the fact that they chiefly associate with that identity doesn't make it a nationality as such, and I think it is more likely that your average Norman would consider himself Norman by region or home country, Confederate by citizenship, and French by nationality (if he believed in nationalism, which, if he was a pro-Septembrist, he was quite likely not to).

That's what I think, anyway, and I hope you can at least somewhat see where I'm coming from.

 

[christos200]

The best state to build would have been the one based on New France Party's ideology. An ethnic French unitary state. A weak confederation just cannot work.

 

[Terrance888]

Viking-Norman nationalism ftw.

But yeah, I never emphasized Norman Nationalism after EQ shot it down (in CEIN), more trust/pride in the Monarchy and their exponentially growing trade-industrial economy. Initially I aligned protestant neighbors against the catholic Paris-Burgundy. That rivalry simmered on and I eventually allied with Languedoc. My switching sides from Languedoc to Paris-Burgundy was more politics than romanticism. So I can say that during the 1st Confederation, there won't be very much Norman Nationalism, although Norman Pride (Industry! Growth! Trade Entrepot!) is certainly possible.

As Occitania during the Great War, the main propaganda was how Spain "Betrayed" us to the "Perfidious" Confederates: Especially our Paris-Burgundian rivals, the Norman turncoats, and the Orleans rebels. It would seem that the sacking of Toulouse (and the switch from my wartime government to Stocky's regime) calmed things down a bit, leading to regional cooperation and alliances. If anything, I would personally believe that, by the end of the First Confederation, Occitania has a stronger self-identity than the Normans can ever hope to achieve. They have a firm base, a long period of self development, and a relative isolation (emotionally, if not in actuality) from it's neighbors that the Normans never experienced.

I don't have much to offer concerning the development of the Second Confederation.

 

[Jehoshua]

I would point out that the second confederation has only been out and out for a year or so in-game, and solely due to the political decision of the heads of the various states confederated. It would be absurd to say that regional identities, and the conceptualisations held by the people of the various entities within the confederation have suddenly been washed away just because the leaders of their nations decided to throw themselves into each others arms in a fit of ideological fervour.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I belive that he's referring towards the end of the first confederation, Jehoshua.

I'm working out a detailed history of Vinland, and have a few questions about early North American colonialism. I have been operating under the understanding (several of my stories reference it) that Sweden had a colony on the Delaware which was later destroyed in the mid-1600s, causing many of the settlers to relocate to the northern colony of New Sweden, which would go on to form the core of Vinland. In our timeline, this conquest was performed by the Dutch, who subsequently lost that territory to the English. Who were the colonial players in this timeline? Was the territory seized directly by England?

 

[Jehoshua]

I belive that he's referring towards the end of the first confederation, Jehoshua.

My comment was aimed in response to Spry's comment.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I too am speaking with regard to spry's comment.

I would say, for instance, that your average Burgundian Frenchman towards the end of the First Confederation would have said either, "I'm Confederate first, Burgundian second, and French third", or "I'm Confederate first, French second, and Burgundian third", and that in that most central part of the Confederation it would have been a relatively rare person to say "I'm Burgundian first".

He's referring to historical events before the breakup of the First Confederation in his post.

 

[Jehoshua]

The quote you point out is a) referring to attitudes at that time not historical events, and secondly it comes as an example within a broader post that is primarily about the present situation in the French states, referring to history to explain what he sees as the present paradigm, or at the very least the development of attitudes over time as pertinent to the present. He's not just making an off the cuff musing about how things were decades ago "in the good old days" I would think (like Terrance perhaps did, which is why I said I was responding to spry). He may be referring to history, to the first confederation, but its not I think about the past.

My point as such is that considering all those nations have been separate for many years now, and local identity was still quite strong in the first confederation, its absurd to say that localism is suddenly subordinate to confederatism, particularly considering reunification occurred at the behest of leaders rather than due to any overwhelming compulsion from the masses. Furthermore, the war with Burgundy could only crystallise regionalist sentiment in the case of the old confederate states, and Occitania was never part of the first Confederation at all, so one can't just say its suddenly lost a local national identity.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

@Jehoshua: spry was referring to a century-long evolution of identities, so you're post on an apparently "sudden" shift towards Confederate-ism is rather irrelevant. Besides that, the various Confederate states have spent only a few years over a decade outside the Confederation (the dissolution of which was seen in part as a German diktat), the latter 5ish for which a resurgent Septembrist-Confederate movement convinced more than 5 (including Normandy, tho they of course lost the most recent election) of the post Confederate states to elect pro-unification governments. I'd say that whatever regional identity building that might have taken place during the interim would have been overshadowed by these developments, or simply wouldn't have had sufficient time to develop. So this is neither sudden nor unexpected.

 

[Jehoshua]

I wasn't arguing that theres been a sudden shift towards confederatism, rather that its absurd to say that regional identities have suddenly been washed away. Obviously there is the confederate ideal, and its still strong, but I disagree with Spry when he says that confederation indicates that regionalism has been subsumed beneath a confederate ideal.

Afterall throughout the whole first confederation the local monarchies and governments were retained, along with presumably the local culture, and Occitania as I noted has never (until now) been in a confederation. You are right of course that separation has only been for a decade and a half, but my intention in making that point was to point out that it indicates that local identities were retained even in the first confederation, as indeed I referenced in my previous post immediately after noting the period of separation. (the other points being, that reunification was done not through referendum so its hard to say that the confederation overrules localism with certaintly, considering septembrism is more than just political confederation, and that recent events with Burgundy almost certainly wound the ideal of Frankish unity)

 

[spryllino]

I think they probably had a regional Norman identity that was undoubtedly more important to them in the majority of cases than their other identities - but the fact that they chiefly associate with that identity doesn't make it a nationality as such...

I disagree with Spry when he says that confederation indicates that regionalism has been subsumed beneath a confederate ideal.

I didn't say it had been subsumed; quite the opposite. I'm not sure that we aren't completely in agreement here - or, if not, I am entirely missing the point of your criticism.