Why Chineese, Indian and Russian Empire did nor collapse?

[albanopolis]

I need your opinions about this topic. We see that China is not a country. So is India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and many more. Why did not they collapse the way all European Empires did?
The difference between a country and an empire is that empires are made of many ethnic groups, countries from a single one. I am amazed how strong all this empires are. Anyone has an opinion/

 

[Anthro-inclined]

Empire is an out of date definition, after the rise of the nationalist state in the 19th century, the idea of an empire began to disappear. Before nationalism large swathes of territory, dominated by several ethno linguistic groups, were not really unified other than by a leader who most did not need to egknowledge, as they didnt play a big role in the people they ruled over, and so this was usually classified as an empire. After the late 19th century people began to see stronger political systems, and the rise of economics and orginized labour, and with this came the nation state, and in turn people began to identify themselves according to their nation rather than their respective tribe or cultural group. There are obviously exceptions, mainly people who wish to asscribe to their own nation state like ethnic minorities within nation states.
Back to your initial question though, for the most part China, India, Pakistan, Russia etc. are not empires, but nations or countries ,as its denizens mostly asscribe to a unified identity like Russian, Chinese, Indian or whatever respective country they belong to, and place this identity over whatever culture they belong to no matter how different from the majority, at least this is the idea behind the nation state, and where it differs from empire. Hope this answers your question.

 

[Nobody1]

Empire is an out of date definition, after the rise of the nationalist state in the 19th century, the idea of an empire began to disappear. Before nationalism large swathes of territory, dominated by several ethno linguistic groups, were not really unified other than by a leader who most did not need to egknowledge, as they didnt play a big role in the people they ruled over, and so this was usually classified as an empire. After the late 19th century people began to see stronger political systems, and the rise of economics and orginized labour, and with this came the nation state, and in turn people began to identify themselves according to their nation rather than their respective tribe or cultural group. There are obviously exceptions, mainly people who wish to asscribe to their own nation state like ethnic minorities within nation states.

Napoleon and the Napoleonic era played a major part in the Spirit of 'Nation State Building' across Europe [Vienna Congress turned it back, but the 1848/49 uprisings revived the spirit], and than WWI (post) was very decisive as well.
And in the 19th cen. there were still a lot of Empires, Austro-Hungarian, 2nd French, German, Russian, British, Ottoman.

Back to your initial question though, for the most part China, India, Pakistan, Russia etc. are not empires, but nations or countries ,as its denizens mostly asscribe to a unified identity like Russian, Chinese, Indian or whatever respective country they belong to, and place this identity over whatever culture they belong to no matter how different from the majority, at least this is the idea behind the nation state, and where it differs from empire. Hope this answers your question.

Tell that to the Tibetans or Uyghurs concerning China.
Pakistan is held together by Islam,
India has a well established caste system - [Dont know how still alive it is in modern times]

Russia once had an Empire, but (like the Austro-Hungarian Empire and German Empire) collapsed with WWI.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

@Nobody1, Yes Napoleon was integral in the rise of nationalism, I forgot to mention him in my post. I also never said that there were no empires in the 19th century, I said it was at this point the tide began to turn from empire.
To your point on Tibet and the Uyghurs, I refrenced this in my initial post, you missed it obviously, "There are obviously exceptions, mainly people who wish to asscribe to their own nation state like ethnic minorities within nation states". Pakistan is still similar to India as its citizens still believe they are Pakistani over anything else, remember the split from Bangladesh, clearly no difference over religion between them. Finally in response to the Indian caste system, its a system based on economic and social class, it exists in the western world too, to a lesser extent, but does not usually correlate to nationhood, i.e a poor Indian is still Indian and recognized by the goverment and most fellow citizens as so.
And I agree with you on Russia, Lenin put a stop to the Empire and united it as a nation.

 

[Nobody1]

To your point on Tibet and the Uyghurs, I refrenced this in my initial post, you missed it obviously, "There are obviously exceptions, mainly people who wish to asscribe to their own nation state like ethnic minorities within nation states".

Yes i missed it,

Pakistan is still similar to India as its citizens still believe they are Pakistani over anything else, remember the split from Bangladesh, clearly no difference over religion between them.

Do you really think that a Pashtun cares whether he lives in Pakistan or Afghanistan? If the last 10 years have shown anything, than its that Pakistanis (Pashtuns) dont care about the imaginary lines some Brit drew [between Pashtuns in Pak. and Pashtuns in Afg.] in the 19th cen. But than again they all seem to be Pakistanis when it comes to cricket.

Finally in response to the Indian caste system, its a system based on economic and social class, it exists in the western world too, to a lesser extent, but does not usually correlate to nationhood, i.e a poor Indian is still Indian and recognized by the goverment and most fellow citizens as so.

Fellow citizens.......... isnt India one of those countries where exploitation amongst the Fellow Citizens is the Highest?

 

[Anthro-inclined]

Do you really think that a Pashtun cares whether he lives in Pakistan or Afghanistan? If the last 10 years have shown anything, than its that Pakistanis (Pashtuns) dont care about the imaginary lines some Brit drew [between Pashtuns in Pak. and Pashtuns in Afg.] in the 19th cen. But than again they all seem to be Pakistanis when it comes to cricket.

So whats the point your making. Not every group in Pakistan ascribes to being pakistani, so therefore Pakistan is not a nation. I thought we adressed this with Tibet, there are exceptions.

Fellow citizens.......... isnt India one of those countries where exploitation amongst the Fellow Citizens is the Highest?

What does being exploited have to do with nationhood, a prostitute is still a citizen of his or her country, even though their profession is all about being exploited. Exploitation is everywhere, and dosent correlate to nationhood, at least in traditional definitions. I am also aware of the rampant exploitation in not only India but our western countries too, but it seems in order to stop this a new socio economic and political system will need to arise.

 

[Nobody1]

at Anthro-inclined

The point is, what is the essence of a certain nation,
The essence of India is the caste system and Hindu religion.
The essence of Pakistan is Islam [Jinnah - Gandhi rift], thats what keeps this multi-ethnic state together.
East Pakistan (Bangladesh) went independent for the obvious reasons and also intervention/support from India.

The other point [initial question] is how stable are those nations.
Yugoslavia was a nation as well, turns out it wasnt that stable once their dictator Tito was gone.
same for Iraq and Saddam, and many other former nations.
The essence/the base and ground are the upmost criterias for a nation and its stability.

Exploitation based on crime is diff. than exploitation based on caste system [birth right].
They all might have the same passports, but what does that even matter in the end

PS. I never said that pashtuns want to break with Pakistan, im just pointing out that being Pakistani isnt the top criteria for Pashtuns.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

at Anthro-inclined

The point is, what is the essence of a certain nation,
The essence of India is the caste system and Hindu religion.
The essence of Pakistan is Islam [Jinnah - Gandhi rift], thats what keeps this multi-ethnic state together.
East Pakistan (Bangladesh) went independent for the obvious reasons and also intervention/support from India.

The other point [initial question] is how stable are those nations.
Yugoslavia was a nation as well, turns out it wasnt that stable once their dictator Tito was gone.
same for Iraq and Saddam, and many other former nations.
The essence/the base and ground are the upmost criterias for a nation and its stability.

Exploitation based on crime is diff. than exploitation based on caste system [birth right].
They all might have the same passports, but what does that even matter in the end

My intial post, wasnt about national stability. A nation can still be a nation even with instability, for example in Canada Quebec has always wanted to separate and has come come close twice, but yet nearly 60% of Canada identifies themselves as Canadian over anything else, funny thing is Quebeckers are more patriotic than Anglos, they just have differing views in what Canada should be. Hell sometimes when faced with extreme instability, in many cases people unite under that which binds them all, a national identity.
Also can you elaborate on why prostitution is different exploitation, It is not a crime in many countries.

Also the view you take on nationhood, in reference to the caste system is very Marxist, I like it

 

[Nobody1]

My intial post, wasnt about national stability. A nation can still be a nation even with instability, for example in Canada Quebec has always wanted to separate and has come come close twice, but yet nearly 60% of Canada identifies themselves as Canadian over anything else, funny thing is Quebeckers are more patriotic than Anglos, they just have differing views in what Canada should be.

who knows, maybe the Quebeckers will become independent, maybe the south will rise again or more likely maybe the Catalonians will seperate form Spain, the Scottish from the UK and the Venetians from Italy; all upcoming Referendums.

Hell sometimes when faced with extreme instability, in many cases people unite under that which binds them all, a national identity.

Yup, muslims and hindus were united against the Brits, and once the Brits were gone...............

Also can you elaborate on why prostitution is different exploitation, It is not a crime in many countries.

Than its not exploitation, if its legal [Required tax payments] than who is exploiting who?
if its a business based on Illicit than its exploitation [no law that regulates]

Also the view you take on nationhood, in reference to the caste system is very Marxist, I like it

i never really read Marx.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

.




Than its not exploitation, if its legal [Required tax payments] than who is exploiting who?
if its a business based on Illicit than its exploitation [no law that regulates]

A nation absent of exploitation dosent exist, there is always someone being exploited no matter how you twist it, its capitalism pure and simple. Your classifaction of a nation is purely ideological.

.i never really read Marx.

You should.

 

[Nobody1]

A nation absent of exploitation dosent exist, there is always someone being exploited no matter how you twist it, its capitalism pure and simple.

what about unions........ LOL
Seriously, you are spot on correct and i never denied that all nations have a degree of exploitation, but it is also fundamental to note that in most countries its illegal (and one can prosecute) and in others its legal.
But its all Globalization, Apple couldnt pull of what they do in China in any factory in California.

Your classifaction of a nation is purely ideological.

Not really. There is no real classification of nations, most formed because of a common interest others on a specific (majority) interest and others based on external interests, with nicely installed puppets.

You should.

i know

 

[Anthro-inclined]

what about unions........ LOL
Seriously, you are spot on correct and i never denied that all nations have a degree of exploitation, but it is also fundamental to note that in most countries its illegal (and one can prosecute) and in others its legal.
But its all Globalization, Apple couldnt pull of what they do in China in any factory in California.



Not really. There is no real classification of nations, most formed because of a common interest others on a specific (majority) interest and others based on external interests, with nicely installed puppets.



i know

Yep all of this is agreeable for me. To elaborate in my claim that your definition of a nation is ideological, I meant specifically for your claim on exploitation, as it seemed you were describing the nation that didnt subsist off certain types of exploititave tactics i.e one where all citizens pocess equal say and power, unfourtunatley this has never existed.
All in all thanks for the thought provoking points, I didnt take most of what you said into account for my initial statement.:grin:

 

[albanopolis]

A nation to my point of view is a cultural group, who speaks a single language, more often one religion, and one race of people. But if you see India there are 25 ethnic groups there. Some of them have up to 135 milion people. And no ethnic fightings. China has about 100 ethnic groups that together number about 400 mil people. Why is it that in Europe is another state of mind and elswhere is not? You see Spain is barely holding together. Idia I have heard is a democracy, a miserable democracy and still people not voting to seperste.

 

[Anthro-inclined]

A nation to my point of view is a cultural group, who speaks a single language, more often one religion, and one race of people. .

The nation is a much more complex entity, I dont think a major nation in our world with such uniformity exists. Your definition of what a nation is or what you believe one should be, is very similar to Hitler and Mussolini's definition. Hitler believed in such a national uniformity and look what happened there. The point being a nation is a hard thing to condense to a few factors, and always carries exceptions.

But if you see India there are 25 ethnic groups there. Some of them have up to 135 milion people. And no ethnic fightings..

Maybe not as many ethnic conflicts as say certain African countries, but there are plenty of religious attacks, probably the most of any country not in wartime.

China has about 100 ethnic groups that together number about 400 mil people. Why is it that in Europe is another state of mind and elswhere is not? You see Spain is barely holding together. Idia I have heard is a democracy, a miserable democracy and still people not voting to seperste.

What do you mean by state of mind, can you elaborate?

 

[albanopolis]

The nation is a much more complex entity, I dont think a major nation in our world with such uniformity exists. Your definition of what a nation is or what you believe one should be, is very similar to Hitler and Mussolini's definition. Hitler believed in such a national uniformity and look what happened there. The point being a nation is a hard thing to condense to a few factors, and always carries exceptions.



Maybe not as many ethnic conflicts as say certain African countries, but there are plenty of religious attacks, probably the most of any country not in wartime.


What do you mean by state of mind, can you elaborate?

I mean they have no problem being ruled by Hun Chinese. I don't think Chinese treat them great so they have no issues.

 

[albanopolis]

The nation is a much more complex entity, I dont think a major nation in our world with such uniformity exists. Your definition of what a nation is or what you believe one should be, is very similar to Hitler and Mussolini's definition. Hitler believed in such a national uniformity and look what happened there. The point being a nation is a hard thing to condense to a few factors, and always carries exceptions.



Maybe not as many ethnic conflicts as say certain African countries, but there are plenty of religious attacks, probably the most of any country not in wartime.


What do you mean by state of mind, can you elaborate?

I am amazed with them

 

[Anthro-inclined]

I mean they have no problem being ruled by Hun Chinese. I don't think Chinese treat them great so they have no issues.

Remember Tibet, this has been one of the most heated separatist movements in the world for the past thirty years. The same with the Uyghurs, Nobody1 referenced this earlier.

 

[FBS]

A nation to my point of view is a cultural group, who speaks a single language, more often one religion, and one race of people. But if you see India there are 25 ethnic groups there. Some of them have up to 135 milion people. And no ethnic fightings. China has about 100 ethnic groups that together number about 400 mil people. Why is it that in Europe is another state of mind and elswhere is not? You see Spain is barely holding together. Idia I have heard is a democracy, a miserable democracy and still people not voting to seperste.

What is going on in Europe and what is going on in Asia (China and India and similar) are two different things that have totally different pace. Europe is moving with faster pace and now is in the "self-management or independent mode". This is the trend in economy as well, there is an ever growing number of self-employed people in Europe. Europeans want to be self-sustainable and then to be able to build synergies. What this means is that the society is more aware (individuals) and want more then just security, food, shelter (jobs). So I think that in Europe we will see in the future more "pure" national states that will want to enter a union (synergy) but only after they have their feeling of complete independence and self sustainability.

 

[LeBrok]

What is going on in Europe and what is going on in Asia (China and India and similar) are two different things that have totally different pace. Europe is moving with faster pace and now is in the "self-management or independent mode". This is the trend in economy as well, there is an ever growing number of self-employed people in Europe. Europeans want to be self-sustainable and then to be able to build synergies. What this means is that the society is more aware (individuals) and want more then just security, food, shelter (jobs). So I think that in Europe we will see in the future more "pure" national states that will want to enter a union (synergy) but only after they have their feeling of complete independence and self sustainability.

This is a very interesting angle.