>From: "Grant Lee" <grantlee at iinet.net.au>
>
>Australians are one example. Created by the British state from its relative
>surplus population. The descendants of convicts and other early settlers
>were recognised as having a distinct accent as early as the 1830s. And
>"Australian" is how 38% of the population identified their ethnicity on the
>2001 census:
It's an interesting comparison, but the Australian case is more of a shedding of a narrow identity for a larger one, no? Whereas with the Cossacks the reverse happened: You had Russian and Ukrainian peasants (mostly; there are also Cossacks with last names indicating Tatar, Greek or German descent) who, as far as I know, were settled along the border and instilled with a ideology of ferociously loyal obedience to the tsar and martial discipline for the purpose of creating an elite military cadre. (And, if you believe Napoleon -- "I could conquer the world with Cossacks in my ranks" -- elite they were indeed.) Over time, they developed their own customs and self-identity. "We are not Russians or Ukrainians -- we are Cossacks!" It's more, I guess, as if an Indian caste developed into a distinct self-identified nationality.
Given the ideology, I'm surprised that a number of Cossacks sided with the Reds in the Civil War.
_________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com