To justify such ideas, various family like terminology is used. Nations are called "brotherly" so that collectively they can be called "family". That way supporters can argue that family must stay together and that outsiders should not mess with internal family relationships. At first glance they sound as innocent and even benign ideas. If countries are close culturally would not, they have easier time to understand each other and get along? Reality's answer to this question is resounding no.
Take for example Yugoslavia. It had all the ingredients of such cultural union: culturally close "Brotherly" nations, single ideology, even single language for 4 out of 6 members of the union. What could have gone wrong? A lot. In fact, so much that wars of dissolution of Yugoslavia were plagued by literal genocide. The two most distinct members with their own languages: North Macedonia and Slovenia seceded easily but it was complete bloodbath between the remaining four. The closest members of the union hated each other more than more distinct ones.
Reasons for this hatred are many, but most of them stem from the very common root that connects them. Because of old grunges that four had against each other, they could not agree who should own what or why. Each side had a score to settle and blame the other one for myriads of different reasons. Long time existing next to each other accumulated lots of issues that one held against the other. Eventually these issues became so many that when Milosevich pushed for reforming Yugoslavia in Serbia's favor it became the last straw and Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia declared independence, Serbia responded with war.
One may counter-argument that these conflicts were due to different religion. For example, Serbs are Orthodox Christians and Croats are Catholics. That may be true, but Slovens are also Catholics like Croats, yet Serbs hardly had any issues with them and let them out of the union without an issue. With Croats Serbs instead fought a long bloody war over who owns what. On the other hand, common religion did not prevent Slovens and Croats from arguing over territorial waters to the point that Slovens even blocked Croatian accession to EU until that issue was resolved.
Finally North Macedonia who could divorce their Yugoslav brothers without an issue or resistance due to having different language and culture, later get involved in conflict with Greece over Macedon heritage as well as Bulgaria over language and identity. Language of Macedonia is closer to Bulgarian that to Serbian and so Bulgarians see it as dialect of Bulgarian rather than independent language. North Macedonians disagree.
From all this real-life experience we can learn that there are two main reasons for conflicts between nations, common borders and common origin. Having something in common does not create harmony and eliminates conflict. Far from it, common things create conflict over who really should own it, how it should be used and so on.
It was the same in the past. For example, 100 years' war between Valois France and Plantagenet England only happened because both kings were related to the late Capetian French king and both claimed to be rightful successor to the throne.
It works the same on individual people's level. People fight lengthy and expensive court battles over inheritance. Relatives end up being much worse enemies than outsiders.
Neighbors too are often worse than someone more distant. During WWII the worst atrocities against Soviet people were committed not by Germans but by their allies, Ustase Croats, Fins and Romanians. Romanians had a grunge on USSR for forcing them to give up Bessarabia (modern Moldova and surrounding areas). After Operation Barbarossa, Germans not only returned Bessarabia to Romania but also gave them gave them territory between Dnisro and Southern Bug, including Odesa. That area saw a much crueller and more oppressive regime compared to Reichscommisariat Ukraine administered by Germans. Anti-western and pro-Russian sentiment still lingers there much stronger than around Kherson further east. Finns lost territory to USSR in brutal Northern War of 1940, in Continuation war as German allies Finns have special reason to take revenge on Soviets for their past invasion. Brutal fights between Partisans and Ustase was a precursor to future Yugoslav dissolution wars.
As you can see common origins and borders create conflicts not unity or ability to cooperate.
Current war in Ukraine is no exception. Russia calls Ukrainians "brothers" but that does not mean Russia will treat Ukraine and its people well. Russians like to joke about Ukrainians and clearly do not see them as equals, but rather as sort of inferior country people that speak funny dialect. That offends Ukrainians greatly and they in turn make fun of Muscovites in a jarring manner, that in turn offends Russians. Add to that Ukrainian grunge over how Russian Empire treated Cossack Hetmanate and you have anger that is waiting to find itself an outlet. Ukraine takes it out on vestiges of Moscow control such as Lenin statues and Russian language while honoring people who stood up to Moscow and whom Moscow considers traitors or Nazis. That in turn offends Russia.
Russia thinks that Americans are behind the war in Ukraine, but in reality, its Ukrainians' own feelings and Moscow own condescending attitude and past insults they carelessly hurled around that led to that. If anything, Americans are by far the most puzzled over the whole issue. For them it's incomprehensible how one can lose million and counting soldiers in a dispute over few statues in cities average Russian will not even find on map. America has its own emotional matters like abortion or gun control that are hard to understand for outsiders but there they are being levelheaded.
Europeans are behind the war too, but not again the ones Moscow thinks are at fault. Germany and most Western Europe tries to dodge the whole issue altogether, France and UK are strongly on Ukraine side, but they keep their cool too. Who really invested completely is Poland, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland and the rest of Eastern Europe. And just cause Orban says pro-Putin things does not mean he does not send Hungarians to fight against Russia, he is just playing cunning here. Unlike Western Europe these guys too have old scores to settle with Russia over past insults and grievances. Partitions of Poland, Prague Spring, Hungarian invasion of 1956, Winter War, Great Northern War. All whom Russia ever offended now piling up against it in some Karmic justice fashion.
If anything of all countries in the world, Poland is by far most Russia like. Poles themselves will chaff at mere thought of this and claim that they are nothing like these Russian vatnik alcoholics who do insane shit when they drink too much Vodka, then will proceed drinking Vodka to not being like Russians at all and then go on to do wild shit breaking stuff around them. Both are proud, full of themselves and condescending towards other. Both think they make great big brother to smaller people around them. Both once had a great empire they were very proud of, both now will get out of their way to get revenge on those who destroyed it. In case of Russia its Americans and "collective West", for Poles its Russia. All these similarities do not build any unity, only add to the hatred.
It more or less works the same way in Asia as well. Take China, Japan and Korea. Cultural similarities only create conflicts between the big three. China thinks they can count on seniority and size that will make them leader of the three, Japan thinks they have long surpassed China and has to be acknowledged as new leader, Korea just hates them both for always leaving them behind as number 2, they think they work hardest but it's never enough to best either of their peers. Once again past grunges dominate interactions between these countries.
Finally with all that cultural similarities, cultural differences look not as diversity but as a deviation or improper behavior. People are more willing to forgive cultural mistakes to people they consider foreign than to those they consider of the same or similar cultures. That is why in the eyes of Russian chauvinist English is a foreign language, but Ukrainian is only Russian language spoken incorrectly. Needless to say, this attitude does not endear Russian chauvinists to Ukrainians in the slightest.
These differences are not limited to just language. Other traits differ too. Few and in between for an average outsider, they nonetheless could be make or break for the people themselves. In fact, these differences are what caused the polities to break up in the past. Nowadays no one remembers the details, or just simply refuse to talk about it, but still remembers the hatred.
In the US North and South fight over gun laws, abortions, culture and more. The rest of the world look puzzled, but these things matter a lot to people in the US. Back in the days, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine all broke away from Massachusetts bay colony over disagreement on religions rules or how important they should be in society. Issue of European rule of law vs Eastern Autocratic rule splits Russia and Ukraine as well as these and other post-Soviet societies from withing.
Different Asian countries have different attitudes towards seniority and women. Mainland China and Vietnam practices uncharacteristic to Asia feminism but maintains traditional Chinese seniority. Taiwan and Chinese in Singapore and Malasia maintain traditional role of women. Japan is very lax and flexible on seniority compared to Korea and China, but very strict on male supremacy and women subordination to man at all times. Japan has concept of usurpation of authority from below, but China does not.
West likes Japan more than China since there is no seniority in East Asian sense in the West and a Westerner will think it's ridiculous, unless they are old themselves. On the other hand, submissiveness of Japanese women appeals to a western person as Western women are not submissive but Western man clearly desires a submissive wife.
Successful unions are not built on cultural similarities or common origin. They are built on common economic benefits or common threats. Small or heavily asymmetric unions always collapse due to conflict over power and influence. Large, mix culture unions with relatively equal sized members work much better. Common culture more often than not produce dispute over who plays what role as similar culture countries tend to compete for the same role, sometimes causing conflicts.
No comments:
Post a Comment