Which ethnic groups could have been fully assimilated into larger ethnic groups?

CaliGuy

Banned
This is possible, given the weakness of Belarusian nationalism.

OK; good.

I am not sure of this. Galicia was a stronghold of Ukrainian nationalism, yes, but Ukrainian language and Ukrainian identity was also a noteworthy factor in Tsarist territories.

Yes, Ukrainian was a noteworthy factor in Tsarist Russia; indeed, Tsarist Russia feared it so much that it issued the Valuev Circular as well as the Ems Ukaz. However, Ukrainian nationalism wasn't the only game in town in either Tsarist Russia or Galicia; indeed, even in Galicia, there appear to have been powerful Russophile/Pan-Russian sentiments up to 1882 or so (source: Professor Keith Darden).

Basically, with Galicia under its rule early enough, Tsarist Russia would be able to fully control the development of Ukrainian nationalism--something which, in addition to the implementation of universal literacy in Russia and Ukraine--would have probably resulted in a very Russophilic Ukraine with large Pan-Russian sentiments.

Could the Ukrainians have still considered themselves to be a separate people (or at least a separate branch of the Russian nation) in this TL? Yes, certainly. However, if usage of the Ukrainian language will gradually significantly decline, it is very possible that younger generations of Ukrainians will tend to view themselves as exclusively Russian.

Perhaps more of a Scottish than an Irish take?

What exactly is the Irish take a reference to? After all, didn't both the Scots and the Irish saw their languages wither away while their national identity remained?

Also, Yes, it is very possible that Ukrainians would come to view themselves as a separate branch of a larger Russian nation--similar to how Scots view themselves as being both Scottish and British or to how various Soviet people viewed themselves as both their ethnicity and as Sovoks. As for whether or not Ukrainians fully assimilate into the Russian population, this might very well depend on how popular and widespread the Ukrainian language remains--indeed, does it gradually wither away like Alsatian or Occitan (in which case Ukrainians will probably come to view themselves as fully Russian) or does it flourish and thrive (like Catalan; in which case Ukrainians will probably keep a separate identity from Russians at least to some extent)?

Possible.

Possible.

Possible.

Possible.

OK; good.

That, actually, would not be very likely. The Finnic peoples on the northern and southern shores of the Gulf of Finland have long had very separate histories and identities, dating back at least as far as the middle ages, when Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden while the Estonian lands were subjected to the Teutonic Knights.

If so, this might make it rather hard to construct a common national narrative for the Finns and Estonians. Plus, this would mean that Tsarist Russia wouldn't have much incentive to put Estonia inside of Finland--after all, why unite territories with such different histories?

Now, if we are talking about the relationship of Finland with Karelia, that blurred borderland substantially populated by Finnic peoples with close ties of language and history to Finland, that is different.

OK; thus, if Finland is able to keep Karelia, the Karelians would have probably become Finns by now, correct?

I am not sure about that. With the partial exception of the Catholics of Latgale, in the southeast of Latvia, Latvians and Lithuanians have long had separate histories and identities. The religious difference between the Latvians and Lithuanians co-exists with longer distinctions going back to the middle ages, when the Lithuanians were the core of an arguable great power but the Latvians were under the Teutonic Knights.

Good point about the religious differences as well as about the different histories of Latvia and Lithuania. Indeed, these factors would make it harder to unify the Latvians and Lithuanians.

Also, though, what about the Catholics of Latgale? Could they have been Lithuanized?

Quite possible.

OK; good.

I suspect the Walloons would have been readily assimilated.

OK; good.

I am not necessarily sure about the Flemings, as much depends on what this France is actually like.

Good point. Indeed, I suspect that Napoleonic France would pursue linguistic policies similar to those of the Third French Republic (after all, Napoleonic France was arguably the founder of modern nationalism); however, I could certainly be very wrong in regards to this.

If I am correct in regards to this, though, I stand by my statement that the Flemings would have probably ended up like the Alsatians. Also, I suspect that, whatever path the Flemings would have taken, the Rhinelanders (who would have also remained a part of France in this TL) would have also taken.

Much depends on the pre-existing nature of relations between the two peoples. If there are meaningful distinctions which go back in history a long way, and especially histories of opposition of rivalry, merger is not likely. If there are no such meaningful distinctions, merger is possible.

OK; understood.
 
Latvians (or "Latvians", i.e. the original tribes that later made up the Latvian nation) could have theoretically been assimilated into the Lithuanians if the Baltic Crusades were somehow butterflied. More specifically, the Livonian Crusade.

Without the Brothers of the Sword taking over most of OTL Latvia, Latgalia and Semigallia would have definitely fallen under Lithuanian control, and those regions would have probably been assimilated into the overarching Lithuanian ethnicity much like the Yotvingians, Scalovians and Samogitians. Basically, you'd prevent the massive rift between Latvians and Lithuanians that happened IOTL by having them start off in the same state from the beginning.

Curonia is a question mark, as it's quite far away from the nucleus of Lithuania, and might end up falling under, say, Danish influence in such a scenario, but it might fall under Lithuania too, in which case the result is the same as with Latgala and Semigallia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
hehe.

Yeah, what you're saying is correct. Latvia and Lithuania may look like close neighbours on a map and the Baltic Way may give you an idea of a pan-Baltic identity, but the actual concept of Latvian-Lithuanian brotherhood only arose in the 20th century.

There would be no way Tsarist Russia would try to assimilate Latvians into Lithuanians, either, because their plan was to assimilate both into Russians, so they would have no reason to create a pan-Baltic nation.

Well, you could try having a victorious Germany in World War I try to assimilate Latvians into Lithuanians; however, that would probably also be unlikely--after all, German nationalists would want to Germanize both these peoples while German liberals would probably be content to keep the status quo.

1) Czechs could probably have been assimilated into Germans- they've been subject to a dominant German culture for about 400 years, and prior to WW1 Germans made up about 30% of the population of what is now the Czech Republic. I think the way you'd achieve this is by having the Austrian Empire pursue stronger Germanization policies in the 19th century, with the result being that by the time WW1 comes about, Bohemia and Moravia are about 65% German and 35% Czech. After the war and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Bohemia and Moravia become part of the newly-independent Austria, and then part of the Third Reich in the 1930s after Anschluss.

This might have some--indeed, perhaps significant--success if this Germanization would be begun before most of the population in Bohemia would have become literate. Unfortunately, though, I don't have exact data as to when exactly most of Bohemia's population became literate (only that it occurred sometime before 1880).

2) The (Arab) Palestinians could certainly have assimilated into the Egyptians and Jordanians if things went a little bit differently after 1967.

Agreed.

Also, Palestinians, Jordanians, and Muslim Lebanese could have eventually come to view themselves as Syrians if a state of Greater Syria would have been created by the victorious Entente/Allies after the end of World War I.

3) Cypriots would have considered themselves Greeks in the event of a successful Enosis.

Agreed.

4) If Belgium wasn't created, there probably wouldn't be any Flemings or Walloons. Just Dutch and French.

Agreed.

5) Malays and Indonesians would likely have been considered the same if they hadn't ended up in different countries upon independence.

Agreed.

6) No partition of India = no Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.

Agreed.

7) Azerbaijan becomes part of Turkey after WW1. Azeris now consider themselves Turks.

The Azeris' Shiite faith might make this rather difficult, though; indeed, a better way to do this might be to have Iran somehow reacquire Azerbaijan in the early 20th century and then to have a Persianizing, assimilationist government in power at the time that universal literacy is established in Azerbaijan.

8) Similarly, if Turkey takes over Turkmenistan, the Turkmen ethnicity would disappear into the larger Turkish one.

That might actually be very possible; indeed, the Iraqi Turkmen are essentially Turks rather than genuine Turkmen.

However, what this would probably require is an Ottoman Empire which is both able and willing to conquer all of Persia; else, the Ottomans simply wouldn't be able to get to--let alone hold--Turkmenistan!

9) Border between Bangladesh and Myanmar is drawn slightly differently. Result: No Rohingya- they would consider themselves Bangladeshi.

Agreed.

10) Republic of China wins the civil war. No Taiwanese identity exists by the present day, having been subsumed into the Chinese identity.

Agreed.

11) In 1922, the referendum on whether Southern Rhodesia should become part of South Africa goes differently. Result: neither the Zimbabwean identity nor the Rhodesian identity ever develops.

Agreed.
 
You touched on an important point. Is the group to be assimilated "complete"? Hispanics (and Asians) in the U.S. receive on-going "new blood" that helps to keep the traditions alive.

From what I get at, there's a clear difference between a Mexican (say) who has been here for a century and a Mexican who just arrived last week. And a century ago, there were Mexicans who arrived a generation (or more) earlier who didn't want the Mexicans who were arriving then to be in the US. It seems like the further back you get, the more "assimilated" the cultures are.

1) Czechs could probably have been assimilated into Germans- they've been subject to a dominant German culture for about 400 years, and prior to WW1 Germans made up about 30% of the population of what is now the Czech Republic. I think the way you'd achieve this is by having the Austrian Empire pursue stronger Germanization policies in the 19th century, with the result being that by the time WW1 comes about, Bohemia and Moravia are about 65% German and 35% Czech. After the war and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Bohemia and Moravia become part of the newly-independent Austria, and then part of the Third Reich in the 1930s after Anschluss.

2) The (Arab) Palestinians could certainly have assimilated into the Egyptians and Jordanians if things went a little bit differently after 1967.

3) Cypriots would have considered themselves Greeks in the event of a successful Enosis.

4) If Belgium wasn't created, there probably wouldn't be any Flemings or Walloons. Just Dutch and French.

5) Malays and Indonesians would likely have been considered the same if they hadn't ended up in different countries upon independence.

6) No partition of India = no Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.

7) Azerbaijan becomes part of Turkey after WW1. Azeris now consider themselves Turks.

8) Similarly, if Turkey takes over Turkmenistan, the Turkmen ethnicity would disappear into the larger Turkish one.

9) Border between Bangladesh and Myanmar is drawn slightly differently. Result: No Rohingya- they would consider themselves Bangladeshi.

10) Republic of China wins the civil war. No Taiwanese identity exists by the present day, having been subsumed into the Chinese identity.

11) In 1922, the referendum on whether Southern Rhodesia should become part of South Africa goes differently. Result: neither the Zimbabwean identity nor the Rhodesian identity ever develops.

1. To at least the degree the Sorbs were, yeah. Even though Bohemia and Moravia already had a large population of Germans so that kinda throws the stats off.

2. Definitely was possible. The Palestinian identity is pretty new and a century ago would've called themselves Arabs and Syrians.

3. Yeah.

4. Definitely would've happened, as evidenced by the Walloon-speaking population of France proper (a few villages near the border).

5. Certainly.

6. True. Foreigners would call them all Indians, although they'd continue referring to themselves by their ethnic group (Sindhi, Punjabi, Bengali, etc.)

7. Possibly, but I'm not sure. There's also the whole Persian Azeri thing, where if the northern part of Persia was annexed to Azerbaijan, the people would call themselves Azeri and not Persian.

8. I'm not sure about this one. Obviously a Turkey going as far as Turkmenistan is going to have a whole pan-Turkic thing going, meaning all Turkic peoples would call themselves Turkish. Or not.

9. A lot of Rohingya are Bengali anyway, so that's likely.

10. Yep, "Taiwanese" would refer to Taiwan's aboriginals.

11. True, but African identities are very easy to erase/change since the colonial borders which spawned the identity could be drawn in any way you could imagine. Of course, the people would still identify as whatever ethnic group they were, so of course there'd still be Shona, Ndebele, etc.
 
-Had the Bolsheviks made Belarus a part of the Russian SFSR, they would have probably turned Belarusians into Russians by the end of the 20th century.
Probably could have done that to a large degree with Ukraine as well - at least if they avoided annexing Western Ukraine.

-Had the Bolsheviks lumped Kazakhs and Kyrgyz into one SSR in the 1920s or 1930s, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz would have probably been considered one people by now. Indeed, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz were actually lumped together on the 1897 Imperial Russian census!
While their languages may be somewhat similar, they live in quite different environments which are rather isolated from each other. I don't think this would have been the case.

-If Romania manages to avoid losing Moldova to the Soviet Union, then Moldovans would have probably become Romanians by now.
-If Bulgaria would have won WWI, Macedonians would have probably become Bulgarians by now.
Neither of these would have become separate nationalities in the first place without OTL separation from Romania and Bulgaria respectively.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Probably could have done that to a large degree with Ukraine as well - at least if they avoided annexing Western Ukraine.

Ukrainians already had a bit of a national consciousness by 1917, though; indeed, that's why Ukrainian parties won most of the votes in the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly elections.

Thus, I suspect that your best bet to do this with Ukraine would be for Russia to capture Galicia before 1880 and thus to prevent the development of Ukrainian nationalism in the first place. (Once Ukrainian nationalism was developed in Galicia, it presumably spread to the rest of Ukraine by 1917 through cultural interaction and whatnot.)

While their languages may be somewhat similar, they live in quite different environments which are rather isolated from each other. I don't think this would have been the case.

Just how different in Kyrgyzstan from southern Kazakhstan, though?

Neither of these would have become separate nationalities in the first place without OTL separation from Romania and Bulgaria respectively.

Agreed.
 
Top