Me and a buddy of mine were shooting pool last night and got around to talking about the characteristics of political minority groups. Specifically, because this is where both of our interests lie, the characteristics of political minority groups during the French Revolution. He's interested in Protestants, me in Monarchists. We're familiar with the historical aspect and actions of groups, but what we were brainstorming about was more the theoretical aspect of it. Neither of us are very adept at sociology or political science.
So I thought I'd open up discussion. This definitely doesn't need to be about French Revolution political groups. In fact, I'd prefer perspectives and examples from a variety of different groups from a variety of different time periods so linkages and comparisons can be made.
One thought that I had this morning was what the difference is between a minority group who forms a political consciousness and a group that adheres to a political ideology that is in the minority. For example, Protestants forming a political consciousness as opposed to a variety of different people forming a minority political group because of their adherence to the idea of monarchism. I would think that the former would be stronger, because it's identity is rooted in something non-political, but then what are the conditions for loyalty or identity to change? For the monarchists, the ideal is there no matter who you are or what you do, but the dispersion of other interests seems like it could easily lead to fractures.
Anyways, if this topic flops, that's cool, no harm done. But since the word "political" does appear in the thread title, I'll go ahead and ask people to stay civil. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm, personally, more interested in how political movements act when they are overshadowed or otherwise watch themselves become slowly rendered obsolete. The United States has a potentially contemporary example, but otherwise has relatively few. It's elsewhere in the world where you get the best examples, both violent and nonviolent.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
An interesting view to examine are the American Socialist perspectives from before WWII. Before I read F. Scott Fitzgerald and some of his contemporaries, I was unaware of the level of Socialist sentiment prevalent among the youth and intellectuals after WWI. I understand that we changed our views as a nation (rather forcibly) due to the threat of Russia, but some of the parallels between that generation and this one are rather intriguing.
The question is, is terrorism the new Communism (Socialism)? Is globalization? Are moral conservatives in our country repeating some of the hatemonger that the Nazi regime was famous for? I think some of our modern intolerance isn't quite so modern as the right would have us believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
immigration(brown people) is the new terrorism is the new communism is the new socialism is the new anarchism is the new immigration(irish) is the new indian-sympathizer is the new etc etc etc
I wonder how many parallels to boosterism I could find in these last five years.
Posted by youngnapoleon (Member # 12358) on :
Brown people ! You could at least put "Hispanics".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but it's both hispanics and 'them islamic peoples'
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I bet you could fill a whole 'nother forum topic on the subject of minorities who are on the gradual but inevitable path to becoming majorities and how they react to oppression from the existant majority along the way...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
brown ~= (hispanics, 'them islamic peoples') + South Asians (such as Indians)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
! You could at least put "Hispanics".