>>I'm interested in the subject of nationalism due to the phenomenon as it
>>exists in the fSH, where you can in Russia, e.g., have "Rossiskyi"
>>nationalism (which would be identification with the Russian Federation),
>>which I think is positive, or, on the other hands, nationalist
>>particularisms, Russian or Tatar or Bashkir or Chechen etc. nationalism,
>>which is very dangerous.
>Yes, I agree with you. Just as Tamil or other similar nationalisms would be
>a grave danger in India.
While I'd have to agree with what you both said about nationalist particularism, do you think those smaller cultural groups within the larger states should just be written off and suppressed as dangerous or potentially divisive? How could they be made to feel part of the larger country if, for example, there's definitely a more powerful cultural group "in control" over them, as has been the case in Canada vis-a-vis the English and French cultures and is now the case with Canada's geographic localities eg Canada's West vs. Ontario vs. Quebec vs. the Maritimes (never mind First Nations for now)? Should they be accomodated and how far? Seems to me, judging from the "integration" (largely one-way, mind) that's gone on among Canada's elite, that what's required is, basically, wealth and education.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca