Stalin thought that the thing that links a nation together isn't race/genetics, or even culture, but a common language, is he correct?

Stalin thought that the thing that links a nation together isn't race/genetics, or even culture, but a common language, is he correct?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Culture did matter for Stalin but a culture is a combination of things. He actually believed in some things that would be politically incorrect today, like thinking certain nations have certain qualities, ways of behaving or thinking. Engels was like that too. The French are like this and the Germans are like that. I think that's more or less true in a general way but he could also be funny about it in a bantz kind of way in private.

    >"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    But the idea that nations are somehow fixed or unchanging would be anti-Marxist. That's where the "historically constituted" part comes in.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's race, genetics, culture and language. Culture is downstream from race and genetics. If you import hordes of blacks from Africa they're going to recreate African conditions and identify with their own race, regardless of the language they speak.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      generics and race are always a stagnant thing that never change? that's anti scientific

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      culture can influence genetics because it creates different breeding pressures. We live in a society that already pressures breeding for success, because people who can't afford kids rarely breed. To think genetics is some fixed thing is stupid

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The current generation's IQ is lower on average because successful people don't breed. What are you on about?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Objectively false, IQ rises over time, the average will always be weighted to 100, which also makes it kind of a moronic metric anyways

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            IQ rises for the same reason height does.
            Better nutrition, better healthcare etc...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting, where could I learn more about this presuming all I know about IQ is the stuff you see on IQfy and other boards?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >people who can't afford kids rarely breed.
        Everyone can afford kids. Only affluent people think kids are expensive, hence why the poor outbreed them nowadays.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What happens when they intermarry? The child of a black person and a white person is... what? A black person? Is that supposed to be some sort of objective fact? I was watching Star Trek the other night and noticed this British actress for example (who has a Chinese father):

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh yeah that's why there are vast swathes of Africa in the US...
      moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is literally vast swathes of Africa in the US.
        You just need to know where to look.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >that's why there are vast swathes of Africa in the US
          Metaphorically? Absolutely, yes

          Let me guess you think an inner city neighborhood is just like Africa because it has gang violence that bumps up the murder rate?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You think Africa is just thick jungles and scenic plateaus populated by Maasai people?
            There are big cities in Africa as well

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The most African thing about black Americans is probably their family structure, and AFAIK that's not genetic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that's why there are vast swathes of Africa in the US
        Metaphorically? Absolutely, yes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Neighboring countries with basically identical population genetics can have big cultural differernces.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Libtards can cope but no matter where Africans are, whether it's Detroit, Northwest Brazil, Haiti, Liberia, or the suburbs of France, it's always poor, violent, and propped up by someone else.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the suburbs of France
        That's Arabs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Tons of Africans too. Point still stands. They still do the same no matter the environment, type of government, or language

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1776 says no

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ccp is a soviet nation and next world reserve. native english are eugenocided irrigaedless any use of the dead language, like latin. georgia guidestones. note human weightings

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What timeline am I even in that that shit even happened and then spread

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "Culture" is just a codeword for language 99% of the time. Other nonsense like dress and food your grandma makes is extremely volatile and nobody actually cares

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In fact, yes, he is correct and history proves it, but I would rather say that nation = language + geography.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I would rather say that nation = language + geography.

      We'll see how true that is now that Western nations such as Britain, France, Germany, the US, Sweden etc. are now populated by a number of peoples who have nothing in common other than proficiency in the official language (to varying degrees) and of course the territory they share

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's true for Germany. We have Nordics in the north, Baltics in the north east, mixed tribes in the centre and Celtic-Germans in the south. When you go to folklore festivals you'll notice that they are distinctly different throughout the regions. Yet we are one country, united by a common language. It is a constructed language, the first seeds of which were sown with the German translation of the Bible by Martin Luther. The first editions were sold with lose sheets of vocabulary, explaining what some of Luther's Middle German words meant in the local dialects. Centuries later grammaticians constructed a dictionary and a grammar for the Modern High German language, using the Latin and Ancient Greek grammar as a basis. By the 1800s Modern High German had replaced Latin as a language of choice in print, which gave Napoleon the idea to call all of the 39 different countries, dioceses, kingdoms and city states just "Allemagne". He abolished a lot of them an gave them to Prussia. Prussia was instrumental in spreading the new standardized High German language through their general introduction of mandatory school service. At the time what was spoken in the North of Germany more closely resembled Dutch or Danish, so High German was like a foreign language that had to be learned in school. Something that the South didn't really bother with, which is why when you talk to Germans today, you'll notice that the (former Prussian) North speaks without much of an accent, while the people of the South are sometimes hard to understand.

    Anyway, long story short: In modern day Germany, there was a common language before a common country, and a common language inspite of locally varying culture.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If that was the case South and Central America would be a global superpower

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The example of Ireland and Britain would seem to disprove this.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Correct. Eradicating or marginalizing local languages is how every nation from France to Britain to even the US created a common identity.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Stalin thought that the thing that links a nation together isn't race/genetics, or even culture, but a common language, is he correct?
    He's 100% correct. Language shapes your reality, race is just labels placed on top of some statistical correlations that have nothing to do with culture.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the shitskin churka thought speaking broken Russian with a churka accent makes him a Russian
    kek
    he was truly pathetic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My first thought exactly, a lot of seething and coping.
      >I'm just as Russian as you because I speak Russian!
      Silly. Also it's not that everyone would become an Englishmen if we all spoke English, not everyone would become a Chinamen if we all spoke Chinese, how ridiculous. In general empires and nations do teach a common language in order to streamline order and control over their subjects.

Comments are closed.