Khachaturian -- what nationality...?
Spence...
born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
What should one describe him as...?
Sp.
Gerard
> Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
> was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
>
I suppose Armenian.
Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.
Gerard
See also:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian
""Aram Khachaturian
Soviet composer
in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian Empire [now
Tbilisi, Georgia]
died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.
Spence...
news:141ef$4a4cccd5$5ed13b3d$32...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...
Sp.
ansermetniac
Gerard
> "Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:141ef$4a4cccd5$5ed13b3d$32...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> > Gerard wrote:
> > > Spence... wrote:
> > > > Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to
> > > > say he was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suppose Armenian.
> > > Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.
> >
> > See also:
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian
> >
> > ""Aram Khachaturian
> > Soviet composer
> > in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
> >
> > born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian
> > Empire [now
> > Tbilisi, Georgia]
> > died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
> >
> > It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
> > Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.
> >
>
> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
Probably it differs from country to country.
But in many countries (national laws) the place of birth does not define
someone's nationality. The nationality of the parents is decisive.
Further I suppose (I think it is possible) that when Khatchaturian was born the
Georgian nationality was not existant.
>
> I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
> Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
> allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
> whatever ethnic stock they come from.
Maybe the UK is the exception.
Gerard
> Spence... wrote:
> >
> > I am suspicious of what appears to be a widespread desire to call
> > Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his
> > cultural allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're
> > born here, whatever ethnic stock they come from.
>
There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'" and someone's
actual nationality.
Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire thinking"?
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Xk43m.3352$FP6....@newsfe16.ams2:
Mstislav Rostropovich was born in Baku. Why call him Russian? B�la
Bart�k's birthplace is in Romania. Why call him Hungarian?
Nigel Bruce (who played Watson in so many Sherlock Holmes movies) was born
in Mexico. Why call him an Englishman?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
ansermetniac
notesetter
According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
of Armenian background".
Bruce
Spence...
news:4d3eb7f1-e563-4782...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
> of Armenian background".
I can see the sense in saying that.
I think there's a bit of an ethnic-nationalist agenda being pursued
elsewhere.
Sp.
Alan Cooper
news:Xns9C3C585F9F7...@216.168.3.30:
Speaking solely of nationality without respect to religion, this discussion calls
to mind all those famous "Russian" violinists, like Heifetz (b. Vilna, thus
Lithuanian?), Oistrakh & Milstein (b. Odessa, thus Ukrainian?), etc., etc.
AC
A N Other1
> "notesetter" <noteset...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Seems sensible to me; there was a similar ill-tempered debate
elsewhere about Oistrakh recently.
A N Other1
No, it isn't - you forget Dutch history, Dutch nationals born all over
the Dutch empire (and elswhere).
Bastian Kubis
> It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
> Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.
and elsewhere:
>> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
>
> Probably it differs from country to country.
> But in many countries (national laws) the place of birth does not define
> someone's nationality. The nationality of the parents is decisive.
> Further I suppose (I think it is possible) that when Khatchaturian was born the
> Georgian nationality was not existant.
I think that in the former Soviet Union, there was an entry "ethnicity"
in your passport (which could be even further differentiated than what
we know now as independent nations/states formerly part of the SU); I
know this type of entry still exists now at least in one of the
follow-up states. In that sense, I guess there were identifiable
Georgians or Armenians also in the time when Georgia and Armenia were
not independent. So if you want a formal criterion why Khachaturian was
Armenian, not Georgian, other than that his family was of such descent,
maybe it can be found there. [Of course I have never seen
Khachaturian's passport. ;-) ]
Bastian
Gerard
Not really.
The subject here was not history, but the UK present time.
Gerard
If there is such a debate about Khatchaturian, there should be another party
claiming that Khatchaturian has another nationality than Armenian.
I did not see such a party mentioned.
WQGT447
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would think that, however Khatchaturian identified himself, it would
be the proper way to consider his nationality.
If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
Bruce Jensen
Frank Berger
Sometimes one is interested in a person's legal nationality, at other times
in one's ethnic background. Both/either can be expected to exert influences
on one's nature, character and behavior.
Gerard
I don't know, but I do think that it depends on who was asking.
But why would he say "Georgian"?
number_six
I agree. When he was born, Georgia and Armenia were part of the
Tsarist empire; in the times when he was known as a composer, Georgia
and Armenia were part of the USSR.
Although nationality has often been conflated with ethnicity, I would
say Georgia and Armenia were not "nations" at the time.
Notwithstanding his birthplace, I have no reason to doubt that his
*ethnicity* was Armenian, his cultural and musical soul was Armenian,
and that he did yearn for Armenia to be a nation. There's an
excellent DVD documentary about him. I found it very informative, and
emotionally moving as well.
e are discussing
WQGT447
>
> - Show quoted text -
Born in Tbilisi? That's Georgian, right?
Gerard
A place of birth does not make a nationality (excepted in the UK I suppose).
WQGT447
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed. That's why we American's so often identify ourselves as
"Franco-American", "Polish-American", "African-American", etc., and
our personalities and views reflect those mixtures...but we're all
still Americans.
I'd be interested in hearing his response on both ethnic and
nationalistic counts.
CharlesSmith
I think that when you apply an adjective to a composer it's about
their cultural tradition, rather than simply the nation state they
were born in. So Prokofiev, for example, thought of himself as part of
the Russian tradition, and studied in St Petersburg. You wouldn't call
him a Ukrainian composer, even though he was born there. And likewise,
Szymanowsky was a Polish composer, even though he was also born in the
Ukraine.
Matthew has mentioned Bartok, which reminds me of a vist I made to the
museum of Roumanian music in Buchurest a few yars ago. It was all
about Enescu, who they described as Roumania's greatest composer. That
was fine by me, but they had a statement in the entrance that declared
that Roumania was a multi-ethnic society, in which all ethnicities -
Roumanian, Hungarian, Saxon, Moldovan, Romany - were equally valued.
So I asked the nice lady why wasn't Bartok Roumania's greatest
composer, and she of course looked at me as though I was stupid and
said "but Bartok was Hungarian".
So I conclude that the label is about ethnicity and culture - not
nationality.
Charles
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in news:0001HW.C673807A...@news.tpg.com.au:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:43:11 +1000, Spence... wrote
> (in article <5I33m.2880$FP6....@newsfe16.ams2>):
>
>> Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
>> born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
>>
>> What should one describe him as...?
>
> Andrea Bocelli was born in Italy. Why call him a singer?
LOL!
Of course, he IS a singer, just not, well....
Spam Stopper
Lora Crighton
really doing is adding to the junk, and there is too much already. If
you must post this crap, please delete the other groups from your
newsgroup line first. Thanks.
Spam Stopper wrote:
> OT: Troll Excreta
Spam Stopper
DavidRF
> > be the proper way to consider his nationality.
>
> > If asked, would he have said Armenian? Soviet? Georgian?
>
> > Bruce Jensen
>
> Sometimes one is interested in a person's legal nationality, at other times
> in one's ethnic background. Both/either can be expected to exert influences
> on one's nature, character and behavior.
I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.
A N Other1
>
> I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
> Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.
A bit like American and English, then.
So, what nationality was Karl Malden?
Spam Stopper
Ward Hardman
masquerading as "<wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> OT: Troll Excreta
FAKE "Spam Stopper" posts, such as the preceding,
are posted by the Classical-Music-Hater Troll, using
the fake email address of "wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com".
REAL Spam Stopper posts originate with ignor...@live.com.
This post restores the original thread subject.
Anonymous
Youre a troo loonie!!!!!!!!!
James CC.
Taree Dawg
He was part Czech.
Ray Hall
Jonathan Ellis
"Ward Hardman" <ward.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad81718f-5d60-48b4...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Also note: Spam Stopper posts are, in fact, spam. Please don't bother, it
causes more trouble than it's worth, in that it only serves to create
another post for the rest of us, who despise BOTH sides in the pointless
little e-penis-waving war, to ignore.
Jonathan.
Bob Lombard
LOL. "Little e-penis waving war". When you open your e-raincoat and
'flash', and the only thing to object to is the e-smell, time to retreat
into the woodwork again.
bl
M forever
> Gerard wrote:
> > It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
> > Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.
>
> and elsewhere:
>
> >> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
>
> > Probably it differs from country to country.
> > But in many countries (national laws) the place of birth does not define
> > someone's nationality. The nationality of the parents is decisive.
> > Further I suppose (I think it is possible) that when Khatchaturian was born the
> > Georgian nationality was not existant.
>
> I think that in the former Soviet Union, there was an entry "ethnicity"
> in your passport (which could be even further differentiated than what
> we know now as independent nations/states formerly part of the SU); I
> know this type of entry still exists now at least in one of the
> follow-up states.
There is actually a Wikipedia article about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union
From the article:
"The passports recorded the following information: surname, first name
and patronymic, date and place of birth, ethnicity, family status,
propiska, and record of military service. Sometimes the passport also
had special notes, for example blood group.
As mentioned, the internal passports identified every bearer by
ethnicity (национальность, natsional’nost’), e.g., Russian, Ukrainian,
Uzbek, Estonian, Jew. This was on the so-called "fifth record" (пятая
графа, pyataya grafa) of the passport. When an individual applied for
his passport at age 16, his ethnicity would automatically be that of
his parents if they were of the same ethnicity as one another
(verified by the recorded ethnicity of the parents on the applicant's
birth certificate). If they differed in ethnicity (again, based on the
parents' ethnicity on the child's birth certificate), then the
applicant would have to choose between the two ethnicities. In this
way an individual's passport ethnicity was fixed for life at age 16."
Note that the Russian word for "ethnicity" is "natsionalnost". Another
Wikipedia article about the term "nation" says:
"A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common
history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a
particular country or territory...
Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a
synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state.
Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the
political concept of "state" are called nation states."
I think that sums up the complexity and shifting usage of terms such
as "ethnicity", "nation" or "nation state" pretty well.
Of course, what makes the whole subject even more complex is that the
concept of a "nation state" is still fairly young and political
borders have shifted countless times, so in areas where many different
"ethnicities" live (or lived) close to each other or amongst each
other, you often find that those borders have shifted in ways which
sometimes make the situation quite complex. Bartók was also mentioned
- he was basically of Hungarian "ethnicity" (his mother was of German
"ethnicity" though) and born in an area in which at the time of his
birth was politically in Hungary and inhabited by Hungarians,
Romanians and Germans and which after WWI went to Romania...That also
illustrates the complexity of this subject.
A N Other1
Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
ethnicity.
CharlesSmith
It probably wasn't an issue for the composers and players, but it's an
issue now for the new nation states emerging from the soviet empire.
They want to establish their legitimacy as states, and so need a
history and a culture, and that includes having their very own
classical musicians. The Armenians have no problem claiming
Khachaturian, and the Georgians have plenty of culture of their own
and may well not miss him. Giya Kancheli, for example, is never
mentioned without those magic words 'Georgian composer'.
It's the Ukrainians, desperate to affirm their independence, who
appear to be struggling, the 'great' composers born in their territory
being either too Russian or too Polish to qualify for the label of
national composer. If you visit the web site selling CDs of Ukrainian
music you find they have to resort to the likes of Lyatoshynsky and
Kolessa - hardly household names.
http://www.umka.com.ua/eng/catalogue/classical/
Charles
DavidRF
> Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
> himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
> composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
> not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
> ethnicity.
Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc. Yet all these
ethnicities were all eager to create their own nations when given the
chance. Here in America, it only took my ancestors only a couple of
generations to completely assimilate and "culturally forget" where
they came from. But for some reason, all the old languages survived
over there which in my opinion is a huge part of how they were able to
maintain their identities.
Yes, Khachaturian knew he lived under Russian rule. He studied at the
Moscow conservatory, taught there, married a Russian and embraced
early Soviet politics. But he also grew up speaking Armenian and he
incorporated Armenian folk music into many of his works. It would be
misleading to only call him "Armenian", but I don't seen any problem
including "Armenian" as part of his description.
Are you suggesting that the denizens of RMCR reclassify people only by
who ruled over them because of Karl Malden's experiences in suburban
Chicago? By that logic, Malden can't be part-Czech because when he
was born, Czech-speaking people were ruled by the Austrians and he
can't be part-Serbian because his Serbian-speaking relatives emigrated
from Herzogovina which was also ruled by Austrians.
M forever
> On 4 July, 00:30, Taree Dawg <rayto...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > A N Other1 wrote:
> > > On 3 July, 09:41, DavidRF <davidrf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
> > >> Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.
>
> > > A bit like American and English, then.
>
> > > So, what nationality was Karl Malden?
>
> > He was part Czech.
>
> > Ray Hall
>
> Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
> himself American.
Or rather, he wanted to be considered American by the "real" Americans
which is why he had to change his name. His Serbian name wouldn't have
been "American" enough.
M forever
That didn't make them Austrians though - a common misunderstanding.
Subjects of the British Empire may have been "British", but that
didn't mean they were "English", too.
It's interesting to search the records on the ellisisland.org website.
Look for people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire such as Dvorak and
Mahler.
Gerard
> On Jul 4, 3:06 am, A N Other1 <another12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
> > himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
> > composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really
> > do not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
> > ethnicity.
>
> Frankly, as an American, I too am amazed that the ethnicities of
> Eastern Europe and the Caucasus survived for centuries under the rules
> of the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, Soviets, etc.
Probably that's exactly why they survived as ethnicities: because of
suppression.
A N Other1
I certainly agree with most of your analysis of AK, but shouldn't it
be USSR/Armenian, not Russian/Armenian?
It was the USSR then; calling them all Russians is rather like calling
all Americans Texans. A small point perhaps, but from personal
experience many people seem to think Britain = England.
Malden's is a simpler case - I wasn't suggesting RMCR's denizens
classify according to who ruled them, by the way, perhaps they do? -
he thought himself American, and that's good enough for me.
As you say, Serbia and the Czech Republic may consider him sons
now.........
A N Other1
> On 4 July, 11:06, A N Other1 <another12...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 July, 00:30, Taree Dawg <rayto...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > A N Other1 wrote:
> > > > On 3 July, 09:41, DavidRF <davidrf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> I think a lot of it also has to do with language. The Armenian,
> > > >> Georgian and Russian languages are nothing like each other.
>
> > > > A bit like American and English, then.
>
> > > > So, what nationality was Karl Malden?
>
> > > He was part Czech.
>
> > > Ray Hall
>
> > Yes, he was, and part Serbian, though I have a feeling he considered
> > himself American. And I also have a feeling all those "Russian"
> > composers and players knew exactly what they were, too. They really do
> > not need the denizens of RMCR to reclassify their nationality nor
> > ethnicity.
>
> It probably wasn't an issue for the composers and players, but it's an
> issue now for the new nation states emerging from the soviet empire.
> They want to establish their legitimacy as states, and so need a
> history and a culture, and that includes having their very own
> classical musicians. The Armenians have no problem claiming
> Khachaturian, and the Georgians have plenty of culture of their own
> and may well not miss him. Giya Kancheli, for example, is never
> mentioned without those magic words 'Georgian composer'.
>
>
he wants to be considered Georgian.
M forever
Strange comparison. Texans don't rule over the rest of the US
population the way predominantly Russians did over smaller populations
of the USSR. Although one could say that some Texans did, from
2001-2009...
BTW, the most populous state in the US is California.
A N Other1
> Strange comparison.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Texans don't rule over the rest of the US
> population the way predominantly Russians did over smaller populations
> of the USSR.
Stalin - not Russian
Although one could say that some Texans did, from
> 2001-2009...
Good, you got my reference.
>
> BTW, the most populous state in the US is California.
>
>
I know that - I made a deliberate choice re: Texas.
number_six
> snip <
> Stalin - not Russian
>
Yes, not only was Stalin Georgian, but his nickname -- Koba -- was
taken from a character in a novel he read (in his teens, perhaps). In
Alexander Kazbegi's "The Patricide" (which I have not found translated
into English), "Koba" is a Georgian resistance fighter against Russian
rule.
Spam Stopper
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:783dd54e-8f9b-4b97-859c-ce9c59118573
@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com:
I can think of another Georgian composer who certainly thought of himself
as Georgian, even to writing an oratorio about Rustaveli. And, unlike the
tiresomely overrated and overrecorded Kancheli, his music does NOT sound as
though somebody is just sitting on a church organ keyboard.
M forever
Stalin was an exception though in the predominantly Russian Soviet
elite. I believe he also furthered Russian nationalism instead of
communist internationalism in the USSR and the Eastern Block.
A number of similarly nationalist politicians were actually from
minorities. Hitler wasn't really from a minority as such but he was
from the smaller of two German speaking nations and put himself in
charge of all of them.
Napoleon was Corsican, not French and his island had just been bought
by France a year after his birth.
All three of them preached nationalism in their host countries in
local accents, not the "high" language. Odd.
A N Other1
Smalll man syndrome taken to lethal ends......
M forever
I guess that is part of what's going on here. Also see Osama bin
Laden. He comes from a minority in Saudi Arabia, too.
number_six
An appeal to the "volk" and an expression of anti-monarchism as well?
Besides Djugashvili's nickname discussed above, the adopted name
Stalin tells another part of the story. A man of steel, perhaps, but
more a man of ice. In some ways, perhaps the most immodern of the
three.
M forever
How so?
number_six
>
> - Show quoted text -
Napoleon is a mixed bag, a man of great civil accomplishment and many
ideas that were modern and progressive in his time, although he
ultimately betrayed the ideals of a failed "bottom up" revolution, a
revolution awash in blood. His biographers probably still debate how
much his military campaigns were to defend France from the European
monarchies, and how much they were for his personal ambition. The 100
days may tip the scales, but he remains an extraordinary figure who,
although a conquerer and a tyrant, cannot be pigeonholed as only that
and nothing more.
Of the other two, I've not too much to say, except that of the people
whom they didn't intend to kill, Hitler likely would have put more
technology to the service of ordinary people. Countering that,
perhaps, is the occultism and pseudo-science that were rampant in his
regime. But I must emphasize, my suggesting he was less immodern than
Stalin should not be taken as any kind of praise.
Don Phillipson
news:4d3eb7f1-e563-4782...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> ""Aram Khachaturian
> Soviet composer . . .
. . .
> According to Boosey and Hawkes publishers, he was a "Soviet composer
> of Armenian background".
This also reflects USSR documentation, which recorded both
political citizenship and "nationality" or racial affiliation.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
news:a54ea$4a4cd47c$5ed13b3d$67...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'" and
someone's
> actual nationality. Is this British thing not a relic of the "empire
thinking"?
Apparently not: it is something that evolved in the late 19th and
20th century only when passports and citizenship IDs were
invented. Before then, most people had a racial identity (e.g.
Irish, Welsh, Breton, Flemish) irrelevant to the country or
empire that claimed their loyalty. When passports were
invented the Empire states (e.g. Canada, India, Australia
etc.) issued British passports just the same as the UK's
(which continued up to 1947 in the case of Canada.)
Thus people like Gandhi (born in India) could in 1900 live and work
anywhere in the Empire (e.g. Britain, South Africa) without
restriction by immigration controls.
Don Phillipson
news:Xk43m.3352$FP6....@newsfe16.ams2...
> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
Born in Ireland, the (English) Duke of Wellington never liked to
be called an Irishman. His rebuttal -- "When somebody was
born in a stable, that does not make him a horse."
Gerard
I can't follow you here.
The way you describe it, it really looks like an "empire thing".
(This was about "we call people 'British' if they're born here".)
Andrew Clarke
> Don Phillipson wrote:
> > "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's no contradiction. Passports are documents in the name of a
head of state asking that their subjects be granted protection in a
country outside their jurisdiction.
Australia became a Federation in 1901 - the component states had
enjoyed self-government since the 1850s. But Australians travelled on
British passports for many years after that, because the British
sovereign remained the titular head of state, represented by the
Governor-General in Canberra and the six State Governors, as is still
the case. This didn't stop people here calling themselves Adelaideans,
South Australians or Australians according to context. Australia
finally got around to issuing its own passports round about World War
II if I remember correctly.
Meanwhile, Australian citizens of British origin often maintain dual
citizenship, because a British passport gives them the right to live
and work anywhere within the European Union. On the other hand,
travellers to Britain / England / Heathrow on Australian passports
sometimes complain bitterly that they have to exit / enter the airport
with Chinese or Senegalese or Sri Lankans rather than with the Brits
(who may be ethnically Chinese, West African or Sri Lankan of course).
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Tom Deacon
Anti-Troll-01
> Bruce "notesetter" <noteset...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[original thread title restored]
Gerard
> On Jul 7, 7:24 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> > > "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a54ea$4a4cd47c$5ed13b3d$67...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> >
> > > > There can be a big difference between "we call people 'British'"
> > > > and someone's actual nationality. Is this British thing not a
> > > > relic of the "empire thinking"?
> >
> > > Apparently not: it is something that evolved in the late 19th and
> > > 20th century only when passports and citizenship IDs were
> > > invented. Before then, most people had a racial identity (e.g.
> > > Irish, Welsh, Breton, Flemish) irrelevant to the country or
> > > empire that claimed their loyalty. When passports were
> > > invented the Empire states (e.g. Canada, India, Australia
> > > etc.) issued British passports just the same as the UK's
> > > (which continued up to 1947 in the case of Canada.)
> > > Thus people like Gandhi (born in India) could in 1900 live and
> > > work anywhere in the Empire (e.g. Britain, South Africa) without
> > > restriction by immigration controls.
> >
> > I can't follow you here.
> > The way you describe it, it really looks like an "empire thing".
> > (This was about "we call people 'British' if they're born here".)-
>
> There's no contradiction.
That's what I thought also.
But because Phillipson started his reaction with "Apparantly not", I could not
follow what .. eh followed.
> Passports are documents in the name of a
> head of state asking that their subjects be granted protection in a
> country outside their jurisdiction.
>
> Australia became a Federation in 1901 - the component states had
> enjoyed self-government since the 1850s. But Australians travelled on
> British passports for many years after that, because the British
> sovereign remained the titular head of state, represented by the
> Governor-General in Canberra and the six State Governors, as is still
> the case. This didn't stop people here calling themselves Adelaideans,
> South Australians or Australians according to context. Australia
> finally got around to issuing its own passports round about World War
> II if I remember correctly.
>
> Meanwhile, Australian citizens of British origin often maintain dual
> citizenship, because a British passport gives them the right to live
> and work anywhere within the European Union. On the other hand,
> travellers to Britain / England / Heathrow on Australian passports
> sometimes complain bitterly that they have to exit / enter the airport
> with Chinese or Senegalese or Sri Lankans rather than with the Brits
> (who may be ethnically Chinese, West African or Sri Lankan of course).
>
This happens with other - non-British - people who became independent also. And
worse in some cases.
(See e.g. former parts of the Soviet Union.)
Spence...
news:h2tpfv$74b$2...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Spence..." <Spence...@garctec.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xk43m.3352$FP6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
>
> Born in Ireland, the (English) Duke of Wellington never liked to
> be called an Irishman. His rebuttal -- "When somebody was
> born in a stable, that does not make him a horse."
>
I see: as expected, *pure bigotry* is the answer.
Well, Wellesley can go screw himself. He doesn't get to decide what he is.
Sp.
George Murnu
> On 2 July, 15:43, "Spence..." <Spence...@garctec.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
> > born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
>
> > What should one describe him as...?
>
> > Sp.
>
> I think that when you apply an adjective to a composer it's about
> their cultural tradition, rather than simply the nation state they
> were born in. So Prokofiev, for example, thought of himself as part of
> the Russian tradition, and studied in St Petersburg. You wouldn't call
> him a Ukrainian composer, even though he was born there. And likewise,
> Szymanowsky was a Polish composer, even though he was also born in the
> Ukraine.
>
> Matthew has mentioned Bartok, which reminds me of a vist I made to the
> museum of Roumanian music in Buchurest a few yars ago. It was all
> about Enescu, who they described as Roumania's greatest composer. That
> was fine by me, but they had a statement in the entrance that declared
> that Roumania was a multi-ethnic society, in which all ethnicities -
> Roumanian, Hungarian, Saxon, Moldovan, Romany - were equally valued.
> So I asked the nice lady why wasn't Bartok Roumania's greatest
> composer, and she of course looked at me as though I was stupid and
> said "but Bartok was Hungarian".
>
> So I conclude that the label is about ethnicity and culture - not
> nationality.
>
> Charles
One answer about Bartok is that when he was born, Transylvania was
still part of the Austro-Hungarian empire so he was actully born in
Hungary even though now the territory belongs to Romania (and let's
not say more about the subject.) Of course, Bartok did a great deal
for the Romanian music with his folklore collection and was a good
friend of Enescu.
Some ethnic-Hungarian composers that were actually born in Romania are
Ligeti and Kurtag, and so is the Greek Xenakis. But of course,
Romania had no clue what to do with them.
Regards,
George
td
Spam Stopper
> On Jul 3 2009 7:57 am, the fake "Spam Stopper,"
> masquerading as "<wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>
>
> > OT: Troll Excreta
>
> FAKE "Spam Stopper" posts, such as the preceding,
> are posted by the Classical-Music-Hater Troll, using
> the fake email address of "wardyhardman(AT)gmail.com".
>
> REAL Spam Stopper posts originate with ignore-s...@live.com.
>
> This post restores the original thread subject.
ditto
wi...@tiscali.co.uk
> Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he was
> born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
>
> What should one describe him as...?
>
> Sp.
wi...@tiscali.co.uk
> "Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Spence... wrote:
> >> > Everyone says he was 'Armenian' -- but they all then go on to say he
> >> > was born in Tbilisi, which is in Georgia, not Armenia...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Being born in Tbilisi would not have made anyone being a Georgian.
> >
> > See also:
> >
> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316019/Aram-Khachaturian
> >
> > ""Aram Khachaturian
> > Soviet composer
> > in full Aram Ilich Khachaturian
> >
> > born May 24 [June 6, New Style], 1903, Tiflis, Georgia, Russian Empire
> > [now
> > Tbilisi, Georgia]
> > died May 1, 1978, Moscow""
> >
> > It depends on: is "Armenian" an nationality, and if so: since when?
> > Probably his nationality was 'Russian'.
>
> Why is someone born in Tblisi not a Georgian? You don't explain.
>
> Khachaturian 'Armenian' just because of his ethnicity and his cultural
> allegiance. In the UK we call people 'British' if they're born here,
> whatever ethnic stock they come from. From what I can discover, it was
> several decades before Khachaturian even *visited* Armenia...
>
> Sp.
But in the UK we don't call just anyone 'English' if they're from, say, Pakistan. We don't call the Chinese restaurant an English restaurant because it's in England. Do we? Otherwise if you call Pakistanis in England, English then you erase their real ethnic identity AND the real ethnic identity of the English too. So be careful with your desire to be politically correct.
wi...@tiscali.co.uk
Herman
> So be careful with your desire to be politically correct.
Jerry
to be less precise than ever before. There is a TV ad for Ancestry.com that
uses “nationality” when they mean “ethnicity.” These are now commonly
interchanged.
I had always taken the first as referencing citizenship (i.e. passport) and
the second as referencing ancestry (i. e. DNA). I think I am in the minority
on this one.
Jerry
Juan I. Cahis
born in it, independently of the nationality of your parents, you get the
nationality of the Country you were born ("Jus Solis"). And for some other
Countries, you inherit the nationality of your parents, independently of
where you were born ("Jus Sanguinis").
Latin Countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Latin American, are more
oriented to "Jus Solis". British Countries, like
Britain, USA, etc., are more oriented to "Jus Sanguinis".
--
Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.
1947Rogerio
Frank Berger
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay and Venezuela
No UK in that list.
Herman
> On 11/17/2021 9:09 AM, 1947Rogerio wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Latin Countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Latin American, are more
> >> oriented to "Jus Solis". British Countries, like
> >> Britain, USA, etc., are more oriented to "Jus Sanguinis".
> >>
>