Mozart's nationality

[Christo]

I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?

No, not at all. But I would rather say the Dutch nation is a demos, not an ethnos. The "nation" arose from political circumstances, not from a pre-existant ethnicity or nationality.

[Florestan]

No, not at all. But I would rather say the Dutch nation is a demos, not an ethnos. The "nation" arose from political circumstances, not from a pre-existant ethnicity or nationality.

I'm not sure this is true. In the times when The Netherlands were part of the Spanish Empire, most of their inhabitants identified themselves as strongly distinct, to the point of violent rejection of any ties, from Spaniards, in terms of language, culture and religion. Does this not mean that, many years prior to the establishment of the political Dutch state, they had a sense of ethnicity, i.e. belonging to a specific place, speaking a specific language or a family of closely-related languages, sharing a common ancestry. a common history, a common culture and a common religion?

[DavidRoss]

I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?

I think the dispute is not about the Dutch, per se, but the meaning of the word "nation."  Many people today mistakenly use the word as if it were identical in meaning to "nation-state," referring to a political entity instead of to a people.  "Nation" is properly a synonym of "race"--but then that is another word whose meaning has been muddled in recent decades.

The distinction is significant.  We may not be what we eat, but to a large extent, we are what we think.  Our liberty is all but lost if we come to identify ourselves with our political masters instead of with our brothers and sisters.

[Florestan]

"Nation" is properly a synonym of "race". 

Not quite. There is a Dutch nation or a Romanian nation, for instance, which belong both to the white race, but there is no White nation.

I think the confusion is rather between citizenship and nationality. The former is a strictly political and technical identification, and it may or may not relate to nationality: in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, for instance, there were Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Slovaks, Czechs, Romanians, Slovenes, Croatians, Bosnians --- who were all citizens of the Empire; but their nationality was different, and in no way did a Romanian identify himself as an Austrian, or a Croatian as a Hungarian. Each group had its own language, religion, culture, customs, ancestry, history, each group had a sense of belonging where they lived and each group (except Germans and Hungarians) felt they were not free to assert themselves as such. In short, their sense of nationality collided with their citizenship. When the time was ripe, each group (again, save Germans and Hungarians) seceded from the Empire with no remorse or regret. Their national self-identification was not the result of a political construction, but completely the other way round: an extant political construction collapsed because of their strong national sentiment, which manifested itself long before there was any political artifact which reflected it.

So, the way I see it, nationality and national sentiment long predates their political manifestation in the form of nation-states. Witness the Basques or the Kurds, who have never had any state of their own, but whose national pride is all the more remarkable

[DavidRoss]

Not quite. There is a Dutch nation or a Romanian nation, for instance, which belong both to the white race, but there is no White nation.

You might investigate the meaning of "race," just as Christo might investigate the meaning of "nation." The Oxford English Dictionary is the best place to start.

The Basques and the Kurds are perfect examples of nations distinct from states, just as Spain and Iraq are perfect examples of states whose citizens include people of different nationalities or races (having little or nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with "language, religion, culture, customs, ancestry, [and] history").

[Florestan]

You might investigate the meaning of "race,"

If you can make a good point for the existence of a Romanian race, or a White nation, I am willing to change my views.

[DavidRoss]

If you can make a good point for the existence of a Romanian race, or a White nation, I am willing to change my views.

Once again:  this has nothing to do with Romania or fair skin, but with the meaning of the terms "nation" and "race."  You evince unwillingness to consider that I, a moderately well-educated native English speaker whose general credibility is known to you, might be offering information helpful to better understand these terms.  That's your prerogative.  Consult the OED or other similarly authoritative sources if you wish to pursue the question.   

[Florestan]

Once again:  this has nothing to do with Romania or fair skin, but with the meaning of the terms "nation" and "race."  You evince unwillingness to consider that I, a moderately well-educated native English speaker whose general credibility is known to you, might be offering information helpful to better understand these terms.  That's your prerogative.  Consult the OED or other similarly authoritative sources if you wish to pursue the question.   

David, there's no need to become nervous. You know very well that we are mostly in agreement on many topics. 0:)

I give you all the credit you deserve (moderately well-educated is a nice understatement) and have no doubt that in the English language "race" and "nationality" are synonimous. But I think that most educated people, whatever their native tongue, have different concepts in mind when speaking of "race" and "nationality" and that in the context of the discussion at hand we should make this distinction if we don't want to worsen the confusion.

[c#minor]

He is a part of the holy roman empire. Mozart and Constantine were great chums!

[jochanaan]

We seem to be trying to apply a modern concept to Mozart, who existed in a time and place when that concept hardly existed and the word nation meant something very different than it does today.  Is it any wonder we can't agree?

It might be interesting to learn what was involved in traveling from Salzburg to Vienna in those days.  Was there a border checkpoint where young Wolfie had to show his "papers?"  Would he have had to establish citizenship or residence in Vienna to apply for the infamous Court appointment?

[Bunny]

We seem to be trying to apply a modern concept to Mozart, who existed in a time and place when that concept hardly existed and the word nation meant something very different than it does today.  Is it any wonder we can't agree?

It might be interesting to learn what was involved in traveling from Salzburg to Vienna in those days.  Was there a border checkpoint where young Wolfie had to show his "papers?"  Would he have had to establish citizenship or residence in Vienna to apply for the infamous Court appointment?

You didn't need a passport to travel in the 18th century.  Passports were documents given by monarchs to people who traveled through their realms, asking that they be given safe passage through that country.  Kings or Emperors didn't give them out to just anyone.  Ordinary people just got in a coach, or on a boat, or on a horse, or walked and took their chances.  If you arrived at a walled city before the gates were closed, you entered.  If not, you waited outside the walls for the gates to open the next morning.  Sort of like traveling through Oz -- without a passport you were subject to the whim of any petty noble, but with one you were only marginally safer.  In a time where the concept of a civilian police force didn't exist, roads were rife with bandits and highwaymen.  Travel even on "Royal" Highways was always chancy, especially at night.  That's why the wealthy usually traveled with entourages of outriders, grooms, etc. usually armed, for protection.

[Bunny]

He is a part of the holy roman empire. Mozart and Constantine were great chums!

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

[LapsangS]

Mozart's citizenship of birth was Salzburgian, he called himself "German", he spoke German as his first language, he didn't particularly love Salzburg, he created lot of his major creative output in Vienna, and travelled around Europe. I would say he was a cosmopolitan German composer. But calling him Austrian is OK to me also. I have always wondered what the real difference between an Austrian and a German is. Hitler was Austrian but he called himself a German etc... 

[c#minor]

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

I was being facetious obviously. Referencing Constantine was to show my lack of seriousness. 

[Florestan]

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman, nor holy, nor an empire for that matter.  It was a fairly loose confederation of states whose rulers were called "electors."   The Electors had the right to vote for the next emperor, but by the 18th century they voted for the heir to the last Emperor, a member of the Habsburg family.  By the 18th century, some of the Electors were not even Roman Catholic. 

Not all rulers were Electors, only a handful of them: between eight and ten, depending on the historical period. For comparison, in 1792 there were about 150 Imperial States (that had the right to vote in the Imperial Diet) while the number of all various separate territories with their own authorities exceeded 1800. 

[Bunny]

I was being facetious obviously. Referencing Constantine was to show my lack of seriousness. 

Clearly you weren't clearly humorous.

Not all rulers were Electors, only a handful of them: between eight and ten, depending on the historical period. For comparison, in 1792 there were about 150 Imperial States (that had the right to vote in the Imperial Diet) while the number of all various separate territories with their own authorities exceeded 1800. 

Didn't mean to imply that they were all electors, merely that by the time the HRE was superseded by Austrian Empire (or Eastern Empire to be precise) many of the electors were not Roman Catholic.

[Christo]

You might investigate the meaning of "race," just as Christo might investigate the meaning of "nation." The Oxford English Dictionary is the best place to start.

Why? We are discussing the concept of "nationality" here, not "nation" - which is indeed a much older concept, more in line with what you are arguing here. But "nationality" is a modern concept, and much more a political construct.

David, there's no need to become nervous. You know very well that we are mostly in agreement on many topics. 0:)

I give you all the credit you deserve (moderately well-educated is a nice understatement) and have no doubt that in the English language "race" and "nationality" are synonimous. But I think that most educated people, whatever their native tongue, have different concepts in mind when speaking of "race" and "nationality" and that in the context of the discussion at hand we should make this distinction if we don't want to worsen the confusion.

Well said, Andrei. Yet, I can hardly believe that in English or American English, "nationality" can ever be used as an equivalent of "race" or indeed "nation". Can it really have that meaning, David?

[DavidRoss]

Why? We are discussing the concept of "nationality" here, not "nation" - which is indeed a much older concept, more in line with what you are arguing here. But "nationality" is a modern concept, and much more a political construct.

An interesting way to look at it.  But again, what of the Kurds, the Basques, the Masai, the Hmong, French-Canadians, and so on?

Well said, Andrei. Yet, I can hardly believe that in English or American English, "nationality" can ever be used as an equivalent of "race" or indeed "nation". Can it really have that meaning, David?

Yes.  See above.  The issue is muddied, of course, by shifting meaning and application of such terms in common usage.  I suspect that the vast majority of English-speakers today use the term "race" interchangeably with "skin color" and have no awareness of its historical meaning. 

[karlhenning]

Well, the race is not always to the swift.

[Christo]

An interesting way to look at it.  But again, what of the Kurds, the Basques, the Masai, the Hmong, French-Canadians, and so on?

All of them: rather fine examples of "nations" in the classical sense. And in all cases, their "nationality" is a much more complicated matter, don't you think? To elaborate a bit: most Kurds hold either a Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian passport and that would be their "nationality" too, if they're not migrated to Germany or the Netherlands. 

For the Basques it's either Spanish or French, for the Masai mostly Kenyan, for the Hmong (according to Wikipedia  ) it's either China, Vietnam, Laos or Thailand and for Quebec it's Canada, Canadian.  0:)

Yes.  See above.  The issue is muddied, of course, by shifting meaning and application of such terms in common usage.  I suspect that the vast majority of English-speakers today use the term "race" interchangeably with "skin color" and have no awareness of its historical meaning.  

Yes, but: nationality? As far as I'm aware, the first meaning in most languages (or the few I know) is something like "citizenship of a particular nation, state". That, at least, is what I've been discussing here regarding Mozart's "nationality".