Custom nationalism

[Bezborg]

All the problems you indicate would be fine if we were talking about Vicky 1. "It isn't necessary blabla...". My argument was, and still is - why not? I've explained in my earlier posts why should a level of social complexity be considered natural, logical, reasonable, welcome, whatever... so I'm not going to repeat myself on that subject.

And what exactly will this new identity impact in terms of a POPs behavior in the political, economic, social or military realms of the game.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? My proposal doesn't deal with the technicalities obviously, but rather the concept, but in the spirit of our discussion... As I've already said in one of the earlier posts, this new layer of social complexity would sastisfy angles from both the people and the state. For instance, a citizen of France from the border region might consider himself German culturally, but he could in turn embrace his French nationality. The French state, obviously, consider the German living there its citizen, but recognizes his right to cultural self-determination. If the state and the man should be in conflict on this matter, well the results could be what they may, depending on the workings of V2... If we're speaking in V1 terms, then the obvious impact would be the militancy levels, but I'm hoping V2 will introduce additional layers of PoP behavior... Why? Why not...

Basically you are asking the developers to spend a large number of hours to integrate a new category of identity for every single POP in the game for a benefit that can be done using the current system with a simple mod changing the name of the POPs culture to something new.

Well, you might as well erase the "V2 map mega thred", eh? I mean, we already have the map, and it's fine, so what are all those people going on about?
As I've already explained, I want the terms "culture" and "nationality" separated. And I've explained why I want it to happen. I realize that I can produce those effects in V1, I know that, I've played V1 continuously since its release, I've modded it a thousand times, I am aware of my ability to make it happen myself, albeit approximately. This thread deals with reasons why the developers should also do it, in a more official capacity

...instead of spending countless hours of developer time creating new categories, adding the new category to every single POP listing in the POP files, and then making the new category have relevance in the game other than simply cosmetic, with all the testing and balancing such addition of new categories would require.

You're right, V1 was perfect, its mechanics and concepts were flawless, improvement (however trivial in appearance) is unnecessary and redundant, V2 should only be V1 with brand new graphics requirements

Like I've said before, the idea itself is not a bad one, but these proposals need to cosider at the same time the amount of work it is going to take the developers to properly integrate the new ideas and make it part of a balanced whole with actual meaning in the game.

And why is that exactly? Is there some kind of rush? Will any more interesting concepts be scuttled because of the time investment? Or worse yet, will any more concepts be proclaimed completely useless because there is a clock ticking somewhere in Paradox Entertainment? Gee, I hope not.

 

[Bezborg]

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I might as well answer you in such a way. It's all a matter of attitude, my proposal and its criticism. We might view any proposal as redundant, or we might not. The only thing I would like to explicitly avoid is the "V1 argument". "You could do this in V1...". V1 had its problems, its misconceptions, its inferiorities... This, in my opinion, is one of them, and a big one. You might chose to agree, you might not, but what we should both do is avoid thinking and talking about V2 within V1 limitations. i apologize once again for the sarcasm

 

[Herbert George]

Languages

Here's a suggestion -

I think a better way to demonstrate this would be to have LANGUAGE and ethnicity as POP features. This might result in a system that is more historically flexible.

For example, compare the folloing two scenarios -

1: Germany conquers (part of) France - French people in the conquered region are pretty angry (high militancy) about being occupied by a foreign power. They don't speak German either, so even if they AREN'T too angry, they are excluded from a certain amount of opportunity within the empire, and are less useful to the Kaiser than a native German.

2: Germany conquers (part of) Austria - Austrians in the conquered region may also be angry about being annexed. However they speak the same language as the occupying power so there's nothing to stop them from "collaborating" with the Germans if it's to their advantage. Some may welcome it as liberation (better political / social reforms...). If they welcome the new Kaiser, the Viennese are as useful as anyone in Berlin or Hamburg.

So, in 1, the conquered people are French ethnicity/French language, while in the second they are Austrian ethnicity/German language. Ethnicity determines militancy, language determines POP promotions. Also consider the second scenario again with Spain & Mexico; UK & USA; Portugal & Brazil; or Ottomans & Egypt (and it works either way around in all those cases!). POPs automatically speak their native language, and might or might not also speak the dominant language of the county they live in (if different).

Taking it a step further, in example 1, the Kaiser decides to teach mandatory German lessons in schools in the occupied territories. This raises militancy, but also starts gradually converting POPs to French / German. The newly educated Frenchmen can now take part fully in the German economy, army, even elections, but may still get militant if Germany goes to war with France again.

No need to create a new super-state: we're still the German Empire, not the North European Federation or whatever. The French will still find French people waiting to be liberated in the next war, but it doesn't condemn huge chunks of Western Europe to be forever farmers!

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Last time I checked, Austrians are ethnically German.

 

[Bezborg]

Last time I checked, Austrians are ethnically German.

Yes and I'm Croatian. Therefore I'm Slavic. Russians are also Slavic. Do you think I'm close to being Russian?

And this is the problem illustrated by this thread. Additional layers of social complexion are necessary in Vicky 2, more so than new types of rifles or whatever

 

[unmerged(91061)]

This really does sound like a great idea for a mod.
I don't think a truly "custom" nationality is viable in the sense of "European" or "Romance Language Speakers", nationality for that time period really did require historical roots, as well as cultural commonalities.
Rather, I would suggest paradox create a system in which POPs can change their culture, merely to represent things like immigrants to the USA become "Americanized", and then modders can add in all sorts of custom cultures and modifiers that make POPs this culture or that.

 

[Herbert George]

Last time I checked, Austrians are ethnically German.

You could indeed argue that. Mainly because they share a common language.

99% of Americans are ethnically NOT American. The majority are either European or African (or indeed a mix of both). But in game terms, does that mean that the USA should be permanently a mixture of un-integrated minorities? Or does it mean that Italian-Americans would be happy about an invasion of the States by Italy, for example?

Algerians, Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis are all ethnically Arabs but they're not the same nation.

Ethnicity is a bit of a dodgy concept because, as Vaul has demonstrated, it means different things to different people. You could quite happily argue that all native Europeans are the same ethnicity (i.e. Caucasian), or go the other way and say that every little region has its own "ethnicity".

That's why I'd prefer to use language as the main identifier. "Ethnicity" in the last post was probably the wrong word - "National Identity" would be more accurate, but less snappy! Language was my main point, but it's not enough on its own.

 

[GregoryTheBruce]

Here's a suggestion -

I think a better way to demonstrate this would be to have LANGUAGE and ethnicity as POP features. This might result in a system that is more historically flexible.

Language is one of many factors that may in fact determine ethnicity. The two are inseparable in some cases and irrelevant in others. Since ethnicity is inherently a flexible concept (in that the lines along which it divides vary widely between cases) it seems arbitrary to put a single factor as more important than others. For example, would you recommend that the African-American population should have some sort of "African Minor" ethnicity and English language? Would they then be roughly equivalent to, say Indian elites (e.g. Tamil culture and English language) with respect to the American government? Would one be just as easy to rule as the other?

For example, compare the folloing two scenarios -

1: Germany conquers (part of) France - French people in the conquered region are pretty angry (high militancy) about being occupied by a foreign power. They don't speak German either, so even if they AREN'T too angry, they are excluded from a certain amount of opportunity within the empire, and are less useful to the Kaiser than a native German.

2: Germany conquers (part of) Austria - Austrians in the conquered region may also be angry about being annexed. However they speak the same language as the occupying power so there's nothing to stop them from "collaborating" with the Germans if it's to their advantage. Some may welcome it as liberation (better political / social reforms...). If they welcome the new Kaiser, the Viennese are as useful as anyone in Berlin or Hamburg.

If anything, I think the experience of the Second World War has shown that collaboration is possible in spite of the lack of a shared native language. I assume that Quisling, for example, grew up speaking Norwegian and not German.

How do you define "useful"? In V1's model, where the state controls everything, they would literally be more useful if they shared a culture because they could be converted. But why is the production of a Francophone worse for the Kaiser than the production of an Austrian?

Let's expand it outside the example of Germany, which is relatively easy for linguistic arguments because of its relative linguistic contiguity. Should the Shah of Iran be able to effectively rule the Persian-speaking half of Afghanistan because of his shared language? I think history has shown us that nobody can do that, no matter his language. What about the Ottomans in the Azeri-dominated areas of Iran? They both speak very-closely-related Turkic languages--but shouldn't religion and cultural heritage be equally salient?

So, in 1, the conquered people are French ethnicity/French language, while in the second they are Austrian ethnicity/German language. Ethnicity determines militancy, language determines POP promotions. Also consider the second scenario again with Spain & Mexico; UK & USA; Portugal & Brazil; or Ottomans & Egypt (and it works either way around in all those cases!). POPs automatically speak their native language, and might or might not also speak the dominant language of the county they live in (if different).

I think you're assuming that ethnicity and nationality align perfectly. For example, would the ethnically-German German-speakers of Belgium automatically accept German rule? I'm not so sure.

Taking it a step further, in example 1, the Kaiser decides to teach mandatory German lessons in schools in the occupied territories. This raises militancy, but also starts gradually converting POPs to French / German. The newly educated Frenchmen can now take part fully in the German economy, army, even elections, but may still get militant if Germany goes to war with France again.

Does the POP maintain the trait of French culture or French language? I assume the former. At what point does somebody become sufficiently assimilated? Do we have thousands of Polish and Italian and German and Irish POPs in the US in 1936, who happen to speak English?

Algerians, Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis are all ethnically Arabs but they're not the same nation.

A small point, but most Egyptians in the pre-Nasserite era did not consider themselves to be Arab; in spite of shared Arab language there was no shared ethnic identity.

Ethnicity is a bit of a dodgy concept because, as Vaul has demonstrated, it means different things to different people. You could quite happily argue that all native Europeans are the same ethnicity (i.e. Caucasian), or go the other way and say that every little region has its own "ethnicity".

That's why I'd prefer to use language as the main identifier. "Ethnicity" in the last post was probably the wrong word - "National Identity" would be more accurate, but less snappy! Language was my main point, but it's not enough on its own.

Again, a national identity can contain multiple ethnicities. Look at Belgium (Walloon/Flemish), Switzerland (French/Italian/German/Romansch), Yugoslavia in the Tito period, Russia (with all its minorities), Iran (Persians, Azeris, Balochs, Kurds), and even the US (Black/white, north/south) for some decent examples.

Yes and I'm Croatian. Therefore I'm Slavic. Russians are also Slavic. Do you think I'm close to being Russian?

No. But Austrians and the main body of Germans a) speak a common language b) are geographically contiguous c) share religion/are not in an ethnicity defined by religion and d) have strong historical ties.

Croats and Russians, on the other hand a) speak related languages, but not the same one b) are separated by large distances and substantial, non-Slavic populations c) are both in part defined by two different religions and d) Croatia is historically closer to Vienna than to Moscow.

What you claim is not the same as saying Austrians are German; it is the same as saying Englishmen are German. Obviously, like the Croat-Russian conflation, this is false.

 

[Andrelvis]

Again, a national identity can contain multiple ethnicities. Look at Belgium (Walloon/Flemish), Switzerland (French/Italian/German/Romansch), Yugoslavia in the Tito period, Russia (with all its minorities), Iran (Persians, Azeris, Balochs, Kurds), and even the US (Black/white, north/south) for some decent examples.

That "Belgian" and "Swiss" are nationalities is very debatable.

 

[Bezborg]

Well this is obviously a complex question, but I don't think I'd be too out of line if I said that most of us agree that some kind of additional social complexity would be a nice addition to V2? The "culture" of V1 is just silly at this point, in my opinion

 

[unmerged(47135)]

Just going to add my voice of approval the the general idea of a dynamic system for collective identities like nationality.

The problem with Vicky I vs actual history is rather that it tended to treat national identities as pretty much a fixed variable. I consider it a well working system, but one of the important features of the 19th c. was the creation of national identities.

That in itself is such an important aspect of period history some form of dynamic modeling of the construction of such seems warranted. After all, there was this kind of informal list for a blueprint of what every nation should have: National literature (Germans and Italians are A-Okay, the Finns need to start pretty much from scratch etc.), a national flag, national anthem, a national epic, etc., etc.

The French historian Ernest Renan pretty much nailed in in 1875 in a little lecture entitled "What Is A Nation?", where he concluded that national fellow feeling relied less on being able to remember a common history, than the ability to forget in a selective and timely fashion, since most modern nations were made up of groups of people who has spent more time trying to kill each other than the other way around.

I also like the Italian quote re. the unification (Mazzini? I think?), that: "We have now created Italy. We must now create Italians."

What the Sicilian mother told her son on the lam from conscription, when the police approached to take him away to the army, is also good:
"Scappa! Arriva La Patria!" Run! It's the Fatherland coming! (As reported by Hobsbawm.)

Other parts, like the Balkans, were even more exciting. Afaik the 19th c. history down there is anything but clear about who was for instance a "Macedonian", a "Bulgarian", etc., etc. Modern delimitations in that history seem retrospective and conventional rather than necessarily reflecting the fluidity of the actual situation.

 

[Sonic]

Nationality?

Alright, good points from all of the above.

Even though I can relate to OHGamer, when he says, that this is a needless thing to have, I always would have liked to see a further flexible way of acquiring and deleting of national cultures.

See, when playing Austria-Hungary for instance. If I am the state, so to speak, and I wish to grant voting rights and whatnot to, let’s say Czechs, or Slovenians. So I should be able to do so. I think a layer of Citizenship is indeed a good idea here; however I would make it much simpler.

A Citizenship layer should automatically identify accepted national culture groups as Austrian Citizens in this case. In 1836 that would only be a limited number of people in Austria. If I win popular support (to that later), and have a liberal party in power, who demands full citizenship for minorities, than an option should be made available to do so at will. A nationalistic or fascist government on the other hand would not.

e.g.: Take south eastern Austria for example. One province has up to 5 different ethnic groups, these being South Germans, Hungarians, Slovenes, Croats, and Ashkenazi. Now the full citizenship is let’s say is only established to the Germans and Hungarians. Now the Slovenes and Croat militancy should rise slightly, since they cannot vote. A simple law in place could grant the Slovenians full citizenship. (Since we want that eventually the smaller minority of the Croats emigrates either to independent Croatia or the US and not causes any trouble in the Empire) There would be only two options basically for all POPs: they are either citizen, with all rights, or “subjects to the crown” with limited or no rights.

Now lastly to the popular support rule or law I mentioned earlier. I would suggest, that you can only grant citizenship to minorities, which either are a significant population (let’s assume for the moment 5%) and / or have their roots in the empire like the Slovaks and Hungarians with the Habsburgs. Plus it should be an option for all full fletched democracies anyway (US).

This way, if you play historically with a more conservative empire, it will never be an option to grant citizenship left right and center. Eventually, you could be forced to do so (Austria-Hungary anyone?) On the other hand, if you go a less historical way of a democratic empire, you could grant citizenship to at least the most established and largest minorities.

Okay, okay. I haven’t thought it completely through I guess. What’s with Imperialism and Colonies? Well I guess that is a good question. I would assume that above can only be applied if you do it on the same continent. Well that’s just from the top of my head, so please feel free to be critic and let’s discuss.

 

[Andrelvis]

The French historian Ernest Renan pretty much nailed in in 1875 in a little lecture entitled "What Is A Nation?", where he concluded that national fellow feeling relied less on being able to remember a common history, than the ability to forget in a selective and timely fashion, since most modern nations were made up of groups of people who has spent more time trying to kill each other than the other way around.

Do you really think so? I thought his ideas in "What is a Nation?" to be rather lacking, he takes a lot of things for granted that he shouldn't, basing his argumentation on those things.

 

[Andrelvis]

See, when playing Austria-Hungary for instance. If I am the state, so to speak, and I wish to grant voting rights and whatnot to, let’s say Czechs, or Slovenians. So I should be able to do so. I think a layer of Citizenship is indeed a good idea here; however I would make it much simpler.

I think including citizenship as a reform would be a good idea. Something like:

Landowners Only
State Culture Only
All

That would remove the oddity of just changing parties changing citizenship effects.

 

[Herbert George]

I think including citizenship as a reform would be a good idea. Something like:

Landowners Only
State Culture Only
All

That would remove the oddity of just changing parties changing citizenship effects.

Absolutely, great idea. I very much agree with this one. The V1 system of citizenship rights being determined by party is really a bit silly. "Ooops we voted for the party that wants to take away our rights". While this scenario isn't impossible (politicians can be good liars!), it certainly shouldn't be as common as it is in-game.

On the other hand, if I could add a little to your suggestion, maybe the party could give the player the option to pass the reforms - meaning, player can ONLY extend voting rights if and when a suitably liberal party is in power (and can only reduce voting rights if the governing party believes in that). But once the reform is passed, any attempt to reverse it would massively increase militancy of those who lost their rights.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

^ See my post about Passing Bills and Parliaments in the Government Mega-thread.
Citizenship laws would be an excellent addition to the game.

 

[Symmetry]

I think there are a lot of good ideas here about the fluidity of nationality. I'd just like to point out that creating a new nationality typically involves a big investment of what HOI3 would call leadership. For a particularly clear example, after independence Tanzania put a lot of effort into creating a Tanzanian nationality and actually succeeded pretty well. Kenya, on the other hand, didn't and now most Kenyans self identify as a member of their respective tribes rather than as "Kenyan". Of course because they were spending so many leadership points on this Tanzania $%*#ed up their economy, but there are always tradeoffs.

The formation of nationalities like "German" or "Italian" or even "American" but not, say, "Ottoman" was an important part of the history of the era and I'd like to see some actual game mechanics to represent it.

 

[rjf101]

And what exactly will this new identity impact in terms of a POPs behavior in the political, economic, social or military realms of the game.

I think this would have a huge impact. If there was a national identity in addition to cultures, multi-ethnic states like Austria-Hungary wo9uld have the potential to become much more productive. Also, it could add to realism as a change of "national identity" could replace the changes in ethnicity, so you would no longer have tons of immigrants and minorities suddenly changing ethnicity, instead their national identity would change, making them useful and loyal to their country of residence, but still retain their culture.

I think the addition of language is a good idea. For example, the Welsh and Scottish retain their own ethnic identities to thsi day, but because they mostly speak Enghlish they have become fully accepted members of the United Kingdom.

 

[unmerged(47135)]

Do you really think so? I thought his ideas in "What is a Nation?" to be rather lacking, he takes a lot of things for granted that he shouldn't, basing his argumentation on those things.

It's a short piece. And very French in its examples. Of course there's room for improvement and expansion.

But from the pov of 19th c. discussions about nationalism, it is still hugely impressive, and just about the only text from the period still viable today. Colour me impressed.

 

[Andrelvis]

I'd say in fact that the text's only merit is fitting in with today's ideas about nations and nationalism.