The nationality is a historical community of people

Sometimes it's good to think about and understand the meaning of the key concepts underlying the existence of the human society. In particular, such as "people" and "nationality". These are fundamental definitions, without a clear understanding of which it is impossible to understand the patterns by which human society lives and develops.

What they say about this classics

General ideas about national identity were different in different historical epochs. According to modern, encyclopedic definitions, the nationality is a community of people, formed from tribes and tribes, historically residing in a certain territory. The peoples are characterized by the unity of language, customs and common traditional culture, which can vary within certain limits. In accordance with the classical materialistic theories of social development, it is commonly believed that the peoples of the world were born at the time of the transition from the historical tribal era to the slave-owning and feudal types of society. It is characteristic here that there are territories on the earth, especially in Equatorial Africa and South America, where people live in conditions of a tribal system. In certain nationalities, they never formed.

Nations and nationalities

As the development of trade and handicraft production gradually develops the capitalist system. With the development of capitalism there are changes in the social structure, the notions of national identity are expanding significantly. The people, united by statehood, form a single nation. It should be noted here that two or more nationalities can peacefully live and develop in a single state. The concepts of the nation and the people are very close, but not always completely identical. A nation can include several ethnic groups, and the state - several nations. The existence within their borders of one state is impossible without a language intelligible to all and a single cultural space.

Russian empire

The Russian state, as its geographical borders expanded, absorbed a number of large and small ethnic groups that historically resided in the territories annexed to the empire. The main state-forming people have always been Russian. But all the numerous nationalities of Russia in the empire were not only not in a depressed state, but also were given an opportunity for national development and progress. By the complexity of its ethnic composition, the Russian Empire had no equal in the history of human civilization. In this respect, only ancient Rome could compete with her. In the imperial understanding of state building, each nationality is an integral part of the whole.

Soviet Union

The national policy of the Soviet period of history was complex and contradictory. In the Stalin era, some nations were subjected to repression and resettlement from historically occupied territories. In many respects, Soviet national policy echoed the best traditions of the Russian Empire. The cultural policy of the Soviet Union was absolutely unique, from the point of view of which each nationality is not just part of a single whole, but also something unique. This was expressed in the financing and development of the culture of small nations. But the most important difference was that the largest nationalities of Russia received their state formations in the form of union and autonomous republics as part of a single state. This approach has brought a legal base for the future destruction of a single state. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, its collapse occurred precisely along the borders of the allied states.

Global trends

In modern national and social development, two seemingly seemingly mutually exclusive trends can be distinguished. This is nationalism and internationalism. Modern industrial production increasingly acquires an interethnic character. Such global integration processes can not but affect the way of life of different peoples. And the style of life, and the level of consumption of material goods are increasingly unified and aligned. But at the same time, the features of national culture and identity are leveled and destroyed. And this can not be considered a positive trend. And it meets with growing opposition from many social groups. But an attempt to build a strategy of social development based on nationalism does not lead to any positive results. Existence in isolation and autarky inevitably leads to the decay and degradation of society and the state. The optimal variant of social development is the alignment of the middle line between the two existing concepts. They do not exclude one another.