An "Invented" People?

Not long ago, the latest in the long line of "anti-Romney" Republican presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich, caused a controversy when he said the Palestinians were an "invented" people. That Gingrich would say something like that came as little surprise; he's made all sorts of outrageous comments in the past, and now that he's trying to win over the lunatic fringe that makes up the biggest block of Republican primary voters, he's got to compete with a field of other candidates who are constantly trying to outdo each other in taking extreme positions on various issues (it's a scary sign when ol' weather vane himself Mitt Romney ends up sounding like a voice of reason -- I'd mention Jon Huntsman, who is certainly the best of a bad bunch, but he's got about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as Barack Obama would of winning a "best president" poll at a convention of teabaggers). But it's worth examining more closely what is wrong with Gingrich's assertion.

The problem is not so much the factual accuracy of the statement; in certain ways, one could indeed argue that the Palestinians are an invented people. The problem is that by the same standards, many of the world's ethnic groups and nationalities are also "invented" and in some ways all peoples are invented peoples. Yes, Palestinians are Arabs who in many ways are indistinguishable from other Arabs in the region and historically they never had their own independent state. But having had a independent state is not a necessary qualification for existing as a separate people. Many other peoples have never had their own state; in the same part of the world, the Kurds are a good example. As for being similar to other Arabs, the main thing that distinguishes Palestinians from other Arabs is their historical experience as residents of Palestine, a history that is quite distinct from that of Arabs living elsewhere. Many other nationalities and ethnic groups exist as separate peoples due to similar accidents of geography and history. If the Palestinians are not a "genuine" people, then what of the Austrians? Are they just Germans? Are Australians and New Zealanders distinct peoples? How about Americans and Canadians?

All existing ethnic groups and nationalities developed distinct identities over periods of time, often based on quite small differences. Some such differences include religion (the main difference between Serbs and Croats is that one group is Orthodox while the other is Catholic) and geography (as with the groups mentioned in the previous paragraph). I doubt Newt Gingrich would call the Americans an "invented" people, but they are as much one as the Palestinians. Until they revolted from Britain in the 18th century, they were considered British by most people, even themselves.

I personally think people make far too much of ethnicity and nationality, since the differences between different peoples are far less than the variations within each group, and ultimately we all have the same ancestors. I would be quite happy if all people could learn to ignore things such as ethnicity, except as something that adds more color to each individual. But there is no denying the power that a common identity has for most groups, whatever the conditions under which it arose. It has been said, for instance, that the distinction between Tutsis and Hutus in nations such as Rwanda was largely a creation of European colonialists and their ignorant racial theories. But the distinction is nevertheless real now, even if both groups would be much better off if they could forget about it. Claiming that the Palestinians are an "invented" people is about as useful for solving the real problems of the Middle East as saying the same thing about the Israelis would be.

On an unrelated note, I would also like to note the regrettable death of Vaclav Havel, who was one of the most outstanding leaders in Eastern Europe in the past century. Far less regrettable, but perhaps of more immediate consequence, is the death of Kim Jong-il, the ruler of the bizarrely warped nation of North Korea. It seems his even more enigmatic son will succeed him, though what that will mean for the region remains to be seen, assuming he is indeed able to consolidate power. Few nations are as dangerously screwed up as North Korea, and it's hard to know what to hope for, as its continued existence is a menace to all its neighbors as well as a torment to the majority of its poor, half-starved, brainwashed people, but a collapse would be a humanitarian disaster. We'll just have to wait and see.