RE: Who Are We Really?
The school I went to was English-medium, as are a lot of the schools across the country. The snobbery and class status of English has been significant since Independence in 1947. The heads of both of the newly formed nations - Nehru in India, and Jinnah in Pakistan, were anglophiles through and through. Both were educated in England, both used English as their medium of communication, both affected Western mannerisms and attire. Nehru's famous Independence day speech - "Tryst with destiny" - was delivered in English, Nehru himself utterly incapable of such oratory in any of the Indian languages. Jinnah was no different, and his proposal for a separate Muslim homeland - the 'Land of the Pure' (Pak-istan) was dismissed with ridicule until shortly before independence, when it was a useful tool of division and demagoguery. I consider current Indian society (especially in the North-West) to be fragmented. There is certainly more pride in India than the 1980s of my childhood where everything Indian was second-class. This inferiority complex has transformed somewhat into an upsurge of fascist Hindutva, and an aggressive pursuit of narrow agendas playing out at top political levels. The relative statuses of Hindi/Urdu and English may be drawing closer, but the perceived divisions in the country are widening :(
I guess my direction in writing this was indeed to ask, does it matter?
Yes, fantastic line of enquiry. I think it matters only at a personal level of curiosity, and healing oneself from inherited traumas of family, tribe and peoples. When we travel, live elsewhere, it becomes so clear - as you have pointed out - that any other consideration of ethnicity along lines of 'us' vs 'them', or in order to find the 'pure streak', is really nothing more than a tool of control and manipulation, as well as justification for the same.
There are no natural lines of division across the planet which conform to any man-made sense of nationality. It can be fun to cheer a team on in a match, but the division into teams itself is as artificial and random as the lines drawn on a map to separate one set of people from another, to split people apart. The most rapid advances have taken place where there is a mixing of maximum diversity (even in humans, the more diverse you genes are, the better placed you are to not activate any inherited condition!). The facade of 'Nationality' is revealed when, for example, one looks at the number of 'foreign' players in any given 'national' team - take the cricket or football worlds high profile examples of this.
Identity has always been a biggie for me - being mixed myself, I always felt and was made to feel, different. It bothered me until I let it go and realised just what a magnificent gift had been bestowed on me by having parentage as diverse as Scottish and Indian :D.
I would have guessed that becoming independent would have led them to want to reject English as a way to claim their own country back. I guess that's what they're trying to do now, instead.
Something that seems to be happening in a lot of countries of late :(
Have you read this post on countries from @mattclarke? It's very much along these lines. Most of these things are just the rules of man-made games.
Our instinct is to want to fit in as children and young adults. It can take a long time to realise that our difference is a new perspective and a gift. Yet, in the right environment, even as children we can grow up loving the variety around us. I sometimes wish that my grandparents had chosen to raise their children bilingual, so that my sister and I could have enjoyed the same. I'm guessing that straight after the war it mustn't have seemed like a great idea to be speaking German, though.
So much of human history we were divided up into cities, which is so much more sensible.
Cities can have their own languages, governance, cultural practices and even internal currencies (with gold and silver used for trade with other cities), there's really no need for the concept of a country, unless you want to micromanage the lives of the people on an entire continent, controlling their movements, activities, and which items they can own.
Villages, towns then cities would have been more like an expansion on the tribes, but the larger the populous, the more disconnected we become and the harder it becomes for one entity to have control without finding ways to keep eyes on everyone.
Of course, what else would the power hungry want? There is no meaning to their life without control.
Thanks for the link to @mattclarke's post - very interesting and I agree entirely :) ...... it's interesting to think just how much is the product of 'man-made' stuff. All man-made structuring, organising, writing (including religious texts, regardless of origin :) etc etc are products of thought, all divisions and groupings too. Matt's observation is astute - cities and continents, but no countries. Cities and continents retain a continuity that 'countries' do not. Pre WW1 or WW2 cities and continents no different (in location anyway :) than post, yet country lines re-drawn out of some bureaucrat's backside and onto a 'map'.
Goodness, given how some of the oldies in the UK still haven't forgiven the Germans, I don't think it would've been a good idea post WW2. Oh the insanity of it all!!
Although cities do sometimes get a name change when country boundaries change or dictators come and go.