Search Results

The ethnic violence that attended the break‐up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s has refocused the world's attention on the importance of ethnic relations and nationalism in multi‐ethnic societies. This chapter presents a general discussion of the ethnicity issue and of the vital role of the international community (in this case, the EU) in restoring the rule of law over the region. The enlargement of the EU to include the countries of South‐Eastern Europe, rather than just those of Central and Eastern Europe, would have numerous beneficial effects on ethnic relations across the region. In the longer term, the construction of a common European identity, on principles of multi‐ and inter‐culturalism, could become a powerful counterweight to exclusionary nationalism. The Council of Europe and the EU could and should play key roles in building this common European identity.

This paper presents Will Kymlicka’s response to the commentaries on his paper on ethnic relations. It addresses four general concerns on liberal pluralism: the role of elites in defining and manipulating minority claims, the problem of intolerant minorities, the relative priority of democratic consolidations vis-a-vis minority rights, and the appropriateness of territorial autonomy. It is argued that in the absence of external pressure, prospects are bleak for significant progress in ethnic relations in Eastern and Central European countries. The roles of international organizations are discussed, and general reflections on the role of East-West and Old World-New World comparisons in the area of nationalism and minority rights are presented.

Summarizes the key assumptions in consociational theories of democracy, enumerates the key propositions to be explored, and describes the data and research methods to be employed. It then compares political attitudes and behaviour among a diverse range of ethnic minorities from countries with various levels of democratic and socio‐economic development—three countries with majoritarian electoral systems (the USA, Great Britain, Australia), three countries with ‘mixed’ or parallel electoral systems (Taiwan, Ukraine, Lithuania), and six countries with PR (proportional representation) systems (Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Spain, New Zealand, Israel). The results of the analysis suggest that there is no simple relationship between the type of electoral system and majority–minority differences in political support. In particular, it finds no evidence for the proposition that PR party‐list systems are directly associated with higher levels of support for the political system among ethnic minorities.

Analyses the historical background to the constitutional crisis that flared up in Fiji in 1987, when a military coup, led by native Fijians, overthrew a government democratically elected by a majority immigrant population. It then discusses the issues that led to the Fiji Constitution of 1990, and that continue to engage the attention of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission, regarding protection of the legitimate rights and interests of all ethnic groups in the island. It focuses on two major sets of issues: first, the elections to and composition of the parliament; second, the functioning of the institutions of government and questions of governance and accountability regarding social justice and human rights.

Hostility dominated the relations between the Normans and the English during the Middle Ages. Peace between the two ethnic groups proved unattainable, and the animosity lingered well into the 12th century. Yet by the end of the 12th century, this hostile state of affairs was altered beyond recognition. Ethnic distinctions had broken down to the point that one could not know who was English and who was Norman. Although Norman French continued to be spoken, at least as a second language, until the 14th century, the aristocracy of England, descended in large measure from the conquerors, came to identify itself firmly as English. In fact, the two peoples merged quite quickly. Despite Norman victory and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the conquerors, Normanitas, the identity of the ruling dynasty and its chief warriors, eventually ceded to the Englishness of the conquered people. These are the processes with which this book is concerned.

This chapter provides a chronological overview of ethnic relations between the English and the Normans through to the end of the 12th century, by which time cultural assimilation seems to have been complete. It emphasises the harshness and brutality of the Norman conquest and therefore of the dealings between the two peoples during the reign of William the Conqueror. The chapter explains and underscores the early hostility between English and Normans, which can too easily be minimised through the lens of hindsight, and shows just how surprising is the speed with which assimilation took place. The changing relations of the two peoples over succeeding reigns and generations are discussed, focusing on the timing of conciliation and assimilation between the English and Normans.

The clergy, regular and secular, native and immigrant, were central to cultural assimilation and the triumph of English identity during the medieval period. On the level of the personal, the church provided an existing set of institutions and relationships that drew English and Normans together and forced them to interact, ultimately with very positive results for ethnic harmony. Religious difference in the Middle Ages was one of the greatest sources of ethnic hostility, and in Christian Europe, including England, religious minorities suffered terribly. In the case of the English and Normans, however, religion ultimately helped to unite the two peoples. Far greater evidence survives of close cooperation and of affective relationships at an early stage involving Norman and English monks, nuns, and clerics than the laity. Undoubtedly this owes much to the bias of the sources toward the religious, but this chapter also argues that many within the church were pioneers in creating harmonious relations across ethnic lines.

The story of ethnic relations in Australia has been very much a story of two groups: the Indigenes and the migrants. One of the major themes evident in this analysis of the Australian ancestry data from the 2001 Census is that, 100 years after the founding of Australia, the same pattern still characterises relations between the non-Indigenes and the Australian-born Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. In contrast to the ongoing evidence of Indigenous disadvantage in Australia, the experience of immigrant groups provides a far more positive picture of the ability of migrants from a diverse range of European and non-European backgrounds to be incorporated into the Australian labour market. While there are clear variations within the first generation, by the second and later generations, ‘ethnic penalties’ suggestive of disadvantage and discrimination have substantially disappeared. The high levels of intermarriage evident by the second generation result in a large number of individuals being from mixed ancestries and are a further pointer to a pattern of non-economic incorporation in Australia that involves limited discrimination and extensive integration.

Examines how India's constitutional provisions and public policies have dealt with the nation's four main sources of ethnic diversity—religion, language, caste, and tribe. It addresses three questions. First, how did India's constitution makers and founding fathers propose to deal with the problems of each category, as they went about building the nation? Second, what has been the impact of the constitutional provisions, institutional frameworks, and public policies that they devised? Third, could constitutional and public policy engineering have achieved the objectives set, or have some other factors intervened to produce the actual outcomes? It concludes that while India's constitutional design has been a great success in respect of linguistic diversity, the record has been mixed in respect of the other categories.

This Introduction explains both the origins of this book, in a conference held at King's College London in 2009, and the questions that structure it, pointing out historical continuities and discontinuities, tensions between taxonomy and practice, historical visions (from Hegel to Humboldt, Freyre to Boxer) and recent angles of analysis.

This paper examines the nature of the state, national security, and the identification of a national minority in the post-Soviet context. It contends that the assumption that post-Soviet states function in the same way as other European states is unwarranted. It then looks at the specific example of the Crimean Tatars.

In Anglo-Norman society, the landed aristocracy channelled a disproportionate amount of influence to the great rural landholders, who possessed extensive military, economic, and political power. As a result, it is important to study relations between the new immigrant nobles and surviving English nobles and rising families of native descent. To what degree did English aristocrats assimilate and absorb Norman ones? To what extent were native aristocrats responsible for the survival and triumph of English identity? This chapter focuses on patrilineal native lineages that survived the Norman conquest or rose into the aristocracy afterwards. As is well known, the Normans destroyed most of the old aristocracy, but the potential influence of even a greatly weakened native aristocracy on ethnic relations may be seen by a comparison with medieval Wales, a society that never experienced the level of assimilation found in England after the conquest. There were many reasons for the difference, but some important ones are to be found at the aristocratic level.

Both before and after 1066, a strong sense of ethnic identity existed in Normandy, at least among the elites. To untangle the course of ethnic relations after the conquest, this chapter examines the basis of Norman identity, or Normanitas, and its strengths and weaknesses. Before turning to the nature of pre-conquest Norman identity, however, this chapter investigates whether this is the main way in which the conquerors of England viewed themselves. The formulaic phrase ‘to his men, French and English’, which appears in the opening lines of thousands of English charters, dating from shortly after the conquest to the early 13th century, raises the question of whether the invaders considered themselves Norman or French.

This chapter presents a brief overview of Englishness and of ethnic interaction before the Norman conquest of 1066 to understand the fate of that identity and the nature of relations between English and Normans after the conquest. A key factor in the survival of Englishness after 1066 is the strength of that identity before. The various factors that upheld English identity in the Anglo-Saxon period are examined to explain its strength and reveal both change and continuity in that identity in the generations following 1066. This chapter also discusses how the English dealt with important pre-conquest minorities and their interaction with the Normans.

Cultural assimilation was strongly affected by the precise nature of the social interaction between the English and the Normans during the medieval period. Yet one cannot simply mechanically trace the relative contribution of each ethnic group and the shape of the new integrated culture from the numbers of individuals in each people, or even from the numbers of each people in various social groups. Just as personal interaction and constructs of identity affected cultural assimilation, so the melding of the two cultures affected questions of identity and relations between the English and Normans, a point that is no more than common sense. This chapter examines the contribution of culture to ethnic relations and identity and the complexity of relations between culture and identity. Three case studies are discussed, one of which investigates the telling of history after the Norman conquest, showing more ways in which it influenced identity, but also showing the limitations of that influence and how identity shaped history.