This article was downloaded by:[University of California] On: 30 July 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 769849548] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Nationalities Papers Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713439073 Continuity and Change in the Regimes of Ethnicity in Austria, Germany, the USSR/Russia, and Turkey: Varieties of Ethnic Regimes and Hypotheses for Change

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2007 To cite this Article: Akturk, Sener (2007) 'Continuity and Change in the Regimes of Ethnicity in Austria, Germany, the USSR/Russia, and Turkey: Varieties of Ethnic Regimes and Hypotheses for Change ', Nationalities Papers, 35:1, 23 - 49 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00905990601124421 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905990601124421

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007 Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 uses city “regime” The Regime of change tories myself of dif these the to twentieth regimes populations, Austrian, cies War ficance popular imperial After Regimes Nationalities ISSN sakturk@ber Sener DOI: Continuity Germany, ferences “explain” these these confines denotes 10.1080/00 focus 0090-5992 in I, of Akturk, four between World the dealing to ethnicity of in legitimacy. of changes. of keley.edu political of in century policies a the ethnic German, of core countries ethnicity Ethnicity brief and the the Ethnicity Ph.D. models 90599060112 either my print; of Papers, War late the with successor democratization rules the and . the this study categories description Regime Regimes ISSN present 1990s candidate 1920s did I, regimes the Soviet Prior most ethnicity which in paper. USSR will Austria, governing Change Vol. 1465-3923 is in emergence 4421 the not in the and very to states significant of Multi-Ethnic be / in 35, Germany, 1920s persisted these Russian, change Instead, this to ethnicity “regime of / Political the described as and intriguing Germany, Russia, No. online/07/01 period-specific quasi-republican to the a transition, literature in 1990s. empires and social these or 1, Sener Hypotheses permissible throughout the since the Science, features and of March Russia, the refers the in ethnicity.” four Finally, Societies 0023-27 category. puzzles and major Russia, Regimes persistence broadly persistence Turkish and Akturk the detail in to University 2007 empires and of the 1920s. applies Turkey: the nuances # dif expression, I each the for in management 2007 and Turkey, regimes resembled will after One ferences of models This for political order ficial twentieth Both of pursued of of Associa of it case. Turkey focus can in to term Empire these these Change California, Ethnicity and rules the Varieties ethnicity. to the in justified therefore codification, between Since tion on each science. retains highlight radically managing policies distinct distinct inquire moved emergence and for a century, and period other. the Berkeley, the à political regulations Regime on the Study speak state It as major in national from policies throughout of is dif the 1 of meaning the to and multi-ethnic After I not of Austria, of ferent policies Ethnic USA. significant the of will important National (in)signi- dynastic- contours dif of basis political possible distinct causes trajec- within World ferent ethni- at Email: limit poli- of ities the the of in a Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Habsburg as The Regime data regimes, and the and after non-ethnic Russian city, (multi-ethnic), (mono-ethnic), necting and (see sions Germany, for ethnic ethnic other and interrelated ethnicity, life. institutions state S. 24 Italy were and Habsburg core territory less AKTURK The Regime the regimes policies: “ethnicity” ethnic moved non-ethnic) Carinthia Habsburg Table such presented than Although World and German-Austrian and split, key level minorities, variation primary republics), ethnicity Federation, of and and hence the of as the Monarchy one-fifth the of territories, 1). the minorities, towards Ethnicity relating ficial of regimes, War institutions and religion, (1) ethnicity to Serb-Croat-Slovene change Soviet population ethnicity were Empire and below. northern regime at the can allow along successor recognition so I, and does documents, the (5) tended the nation (3) as a to justifiably of inherited and Union to in language, the of multi-ethnic respectively. single in these the Lower is people’s collapsed to nation not and of ficial the in territories, and society’s the citizenship parts a Austria nation: Turkey prevent reader was towards the complex, ethnicity of can / describe prewar Republic dimensions policies. (7) of Russia, versus level. (2) four can the by Austria remaining be more coupled be or coping the the at of a can classified perception the since doing be (SCS) Habsburgs. ideology countries, regime conceived a wider ficial One the such multiple Austria, composite Habsburg nation mono-ethnic and influences than basis of defined It German-Austrian be the of (includes end mechanisms is 1918 relates can with ethnic German-Austria injustice territorial Turkey said as Kingdom, interpretive in one a non-of after of of can as (non-ethnic). discern constellation Carinthia Austria of I of along having to ethnicity as the upholding challenges will immigration The variable ficial to territories. be World ethnicity individual minorities, have provide ficial the Vienna), the World regime to equated not ethnic a name at respectively. with and languages, union the connection social instituted freedom mono-ethnic, least War use and in societal because state, War dif subtle variation the is Germany, during ethnic the of autonomy ( to of these Deutscho with Tremendous and Tyrol. three Upper not II. ferent of category (ethnic seven (4) southern constitution, what the I. while However, multiple based the Austria one complexities social labels it a (6) norms diversity the between 2 distinct linguistic state regimes refers Austria Although along non-ethnic Austria, related focus ¨ was the af ethnic sterreich Nazi multi-ethnic, (e.g. or Tyrol other on firmative (mono-, parts perceptions Soviet changed was not). ethnic and to the perceived shrinkage in these ways of autonomous Occupation, the in census, of institutions a constituted group than and describing my Salzburg, ceding empirical identified bundle rights everyday ethnicity ). informal the “nation” of Austria, Union dimen- of regime groups multi-, Of action study. Styria ethni- these from very con- only and and the of of as of of to / 25 Turkey Note Immigration Af Territorial Recognition Descriptive Of Linguistic Citizenship autonomy firmative ficial : The allowed language ethnicity rights ethnic action dimensions broadcasting Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 category Ethnic No Yes Multiple Yes Yes No TABLE was in Burgenland, Croatian Hungarian i n Carinthia minority abolished Austria regional: 1 in Dimensions and languages Slovenian from Russian of in regimes 2003. Ethnic No Yes Single: No No Yes internal their own education have Frisians, of language territories Germany though a ethnicity right passports and in to Danes, their Sorbians in and in 1997; variation Non-ethnic Yes Yes Multiple Yes Yes Yes the Soviet titular regions dozens German across Federation Union languages regional: of have cases autonomous citizenship / R their until u s s i a n 1997 law was Non-ethnic No No Single: Yes No No their a Greeks, right amended own though to Turkey and education schools in Jews Armenians, 1999; have

in and

ETHNICITY OF REGIMES Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 capital, ceded 1921 part to self-determination frontier 3% principle Germain As Plebiscite Varieties country weakness strength has The distinctiveness, themselves regions Burgenland. Slovenes multi-ethnic S. 26 Croats remained while Germanization Nazi nued Carinthia by problem” around the AKTURK In The Carinthia implement the results a its were resilience of contrast, for the victor Germany, the to regions states were the institutional O with it such between ¨ of a the German lived denburg an (1918), Jews of of for Italians). since while of in voted regional Hungarian from of unification Austro-Hungary provided regional about interesting National distinct which involved as Austria. Austrian the the that of in the and campaign also Turkey. Croats longer the scramble to other Carinthia, Austria regional / population principle which principle constitute Sopron, 4 four Great Roma were identities and remain entertaining regional In identities population the half The and Self-Determination: along Austrian of Burgenland, region and times this contested political / was War, and Burgenland most identities, Sinti over aimed of the evocation where of while by Hungarians in Austria, case was agitated in the identities. the as Italy national a curious for independent Italy Italy. both Hungary. Austria protracted of provinces clear numerous Austrian-Yugoslav reduced Dual ideas Hungarians Croatian was at foundations the studying by the but Burgenland with was constituting such eradicating of for Austria, with debate region identity Monarchy violation self-determination. of overwhelmingly provides Salzburg, rather dif in 5 union given to their as wide border Austria ferent and A and as of regimes Burgenland a Ethnic Carinthia were much demanded was Sopron large the Hungarians. an in formations distinct Hungarian with Vienna, South autonomy and an of minority types before the national Tyrol, obvious about dispute with sent not smaller intriguing Border of border. Croat the Carinthia Austria. and Habsburg and Tyrol ethnicity. flags, over to of the and were national and a the a German several minorities the and at narrative Tyrol, plebiscite. ethno-linguistic and trumping While and After Austria, languages exception fifth In Drawing war, jealously clarifying the in Carinthia symbols, In contrast concentration was faced order the even the Hungarian 1921, era. societal World of the had small between Burgenland self-determination guided largest speaking large Treaty in to the with independence. were of Anschluss been The In of and Hungary a to guarded and and increase distinguished communities some War the a much the population. the numbers level by plebiscite, a surprising present “minority Habsburg the 1918 identities histories, of minority cultures, regional national camps. virulent a relative I (about ethnic Saint- desire was larger conti- make their their with con- and of in a 3 6 Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 state oppression” Carinthia foodstuf inclusion campaign Once a Carinthia, bargaining the identities membership of the religious An to do po between conflict historically Paradoxically, subjective Carinthia on evoked since plebiscite. th mi pu The Austria In Yugoslavia. This 1910, remain words, Over Yugoslavia. informed turned But an Austrian ethnic e Austrian la na contrast, of Slovenes m the ti “objective” Italy te Austrian the on on “decay,” fs implies with 22 / d which (Catholic) the to decision justified ar was exclusion 59 , out, to only in war arguments to Y principle understandings w 7 power, was 000 rooted, ch Belgrade elude was in u campaign Austria. Austria’s per h engender g the the the 8 Slovene y in nation i then, Yugoslavia the had o indicated in c that to not i had h s n state favor cent emphasized, Yugoslavia la Austrian Carinthian Carinthia, lose ethnic is c the nation its for the v 10 a h understanding Yugoslav social, chosen i of Yugoslavia af a co that This a that majority of r annexation linking , in 000 used recognition only finities, g of attitude a it ethnic-national mm based (3 and a e that the plebiscite to he allowing o reinforced principle, ) these a is Slovene also Slovene-speaking f power on side cultural, of Austria, t Austria a population was Y h particularly 69% non-ethnic German the e was u on Slovenes, mixture Carinthian to in and armies ethnicity, and as g resisted re emphasized states certain o did Ge the that old of pu themes such s to presented la of – the while of was regime-based while b the rm later. South vi which by and Yugoslavia, not plebiscite opposed l imperial ethnicity i a. ethnicity, population c occupied maintained an parts, self-determination, in employed. of a population the Catholic a interesting 1 made, want n 0 and guise. plebiscite s economic Carinthia the which 15 of Slovenes , old T a Slavic Carinthians suggestion. d would h n (1) as e 000 which d e the “old” organized (2) m a imperial (Habsburg), r as area. Sl Austria a e oc the plebiscite idea The unity s would Klagenfurt, whereby had o youthful but ul that to of a ra and in the v in The feeling. is require ts Austrian e regional political to unit reveal ti decide the Though of n light Carinthia voted c surprising they of the Austrian e and voted the economic In Catholicism s a r and and Slovenian plebiscite , e th be plebiscite that trips g i whole of early e n their historically new i in other resisted the the the for m regional a The p manifest Yugoslavia c in new the identity force l state the e Carinthia. o was the e partition would REGIMES between n favor Yugoslavia. b future Slovene o dif state arguments June, t of and i model language r f s history Yugoslav South a area arguments republican c in regional ferent A indivisible, s was Carinthia and i leadership giving t t u of e Carinthia. counter-intuitive, (Carinthian), spell of t in of s of o Trumbic w in was t rooted Austria. r to portrayed t the e OF of i Slavic Carinthia the Slovenia of h a the engaged majorities r strategies a of survey , e a e reconstitute Slovene. were In primacy ETHNICITY the i s delegation loss plebiscite. Or making. capital region n managing should u “German Austrian defeated r ideas other regional As c th 11 p thus carried had people o region r for od based of n i it s tr in in as i and and o n via 27 as 9 of of of x in to in g a a a - t : Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Slovenes Source Czechs Slovenes Hungarians Croats Census position Slovenes, Carinthia not Slovenian Windish ( Apart Enigma assimilation imperial, elude employed multi-ethnicity S. 28 the the took but documented. identification Germanization have German between Even signaled Windische AKTURK Apart TABLE war. Slovene-inhabited who descended place expected in : in the from results in Suppan, in was Burgenland of the “[T]he from as the their only Vienna are regional, who for who speakers. imperial recognition in 2 during ) Carinthia the their in 15 German- 1951 appears relatively Autochthonous meager Burgenland by among 1,000 Slovenian-speaking share willingness the Carinthia do both in both Die want from “Windish” Nazi least language only the Nazi not and Windish, o ¨ and history, in sterreichischen states. years, many According the in early and the to Yugoslav rule want and Burgenland 1971 part language of liberal occupation, censuses religious was assimilate Slovenes. tactical Slovenes ethnicity to words interwar who Slovene and (1938 of in to censuses, religion, a the be 34,650 41,761 47,555 be very Carinthia: environment Carinthia.” urban 9,606 to goal 1923 belong part only (see – Slovene.” from and with ideas a and Volksgruppen 1945), residents The period and but large into speakers as theory minorities was of part republican Table other more in the the Nazi a Tito rather Austrian to would Austrian Carinthia, 16 proportion the of political 24,857 41,392 28,403 Slovenes is which Slovenes. the beginning, 14 8,353 developed 1934 of ethnic than Austria While similar 2). demanded elite of obtaining in in from German , postwar be 18. This Carinthia Carinthia, post-Habsburg ideas, half society, of pursued society. abandoned investigations category. Soviet to who to where 12 Carinthia the of of is have after 43,179 28,327 52,275 in the But, 4,383 a of cultural self-identified and 1939 Austria, surprising Slovenian Wends, the want revision as Turkish 13 a Yugoslav support who an bolstered Tito’s the in eventually territorial the 1920s, The Later, in in aggressive fact, Austria, to category circle plebiscite do in this who favor in be of split 42,095 30,428 model, “Windish for speakers 4,827 3,438 since the 1951 the the partisan this not the ethno-linguistic the German? period Slovenes 1923 autonomy have ( the with Kulturkreis two language, of Windish Windish region. border identify mixture one which “Windish” policy Yugoslav indicates. linguistic – are Stalin adopted decades been 1971 activity . would 20,972 24,332 . 5,447 6,528 . after 1971 well also also The are are are for as of of to in ), it Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 space 101,030 times, tative linguistic through in enced Austro-Hungary: remember twenty-first disappearance workplace onto speakers. German-speaking state disappeared be factors but recognition larger used Common which confessional The A ethnic a tion Many state In Preliminary eastern considered made became of The not into Austrian Burgenland, treaty their in of Solferino. German-speaking Slovenes, an of a groups. allows in Trottas policy for this process linguistic (30% the sure Austrian ethnic two identifications changing While imperial language, Austria. and his the that of Czechs century assimilation altogether, model that political experiences for decades, were and a of of that title adopted He Description established opening revival Croats, domestic which later Carinthia) the the social the majority, linguistic-educational assimilation” society was of a recognized In or history, to the would young the Croatian remnants times inclusion nobility. other Austria, community connect brought a and in halved and Austrian Czechs, Austrian by German. process working Slovene. paragraph or the even illustrate dynasty. have lost the postwar the economic in as territorial-regional of minorities, an 1990s Fate and 1890 witnessed only minorities all Allies it the the Croats, the of of in international and been reinforced that regime society. Sipolje—the “In further class memory ethnic post-Habsburg Hungarian Their had Slovenian-speaking the to Austrian century-long Austria. to a Hungarians language that of has reasserted the the developments transition a 42,095 elected Hungarians, Hungarian assimilated which Joseph progenitor rights been of prevented new International by to most minorities themselves. 1980s of by ethnicity. 20,972 him. the Model factor German taking language (9% groups, community him for bottom-up hints plausible identity, prewar chose Roth’s from a 20 decline pattern Croats, times, had scenario for of nobility the into depending encouraged Slovenes, by place through at 18 name The Carinthia) been imperial, a the not negotiations extinction population the Austrian groups This 1971. the special literary one.” in which remains and Slovenes, discouragement familiar Nazi in knighted objective based for primacy Croatian predicting and dominant REGIMES Austria model linguistic 19 17 Catholic his and on in deed. period, was assimilation multi-ethnic, It in Yet borders middle masterpiece of on native Burgenland one one’s of route is after 1951, led Czechs is and these of made since and Europe and Carinthia But one fitting also OF culture of the to assimilation. international which the religion Hungarians, village— of view in class ETHNICITY immutable and, the he Hungarian “inclusion languages Habsburg language, of represen- easier complete assimila- Battle the with into then here experi- of ethno- multi- of in in in about could cling ficial 1955 from the the the the are the the 29 by to Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 paratively Table 600,000, far Western while siders number Sorbians minority Today, Regime The and of which sidered founded occupation the jump larly Anschluss S. 30 live. ists rose charismatic continues, years. 2003, living having grounds by Sorbian German Sinti AKTURK According Danish the its the who 1939 22 Yugoslav to German German are 25 there 3). in in citizens. the allowed minority one-third Danes national a Turkish the represents linguistic autonomous Of of of had German as estimated Germany is countries The the in , rights Greeks census and Frisians as in introduced Ethnicity all only are these and leader of the Brandenburg held to nationalist the muted and emphasis ethnically numbers Sorbian intrusions, residents the prominence a the eastern This legislation, minority, supportive in Amtssprache four of further exemplar (see bloodline, “foreigners” it over assimilation Frisians only state who today, in at German that Germany for these fashion, enclave model in 60,000 Schleswig-Holstein minorities Table are into a of on carried 40 300,000, to based Austria of Germany have FPO 350,000 fraction which numbering languages all elude are and “foreigners” years. “objective Viennese this Germany. of the by of Ministry ¨ depriving has 2). , in and of the jus wresting “German are territorially estimated the ethno-federalism. (i.e. everywhere, as state this Saxony, otherwise Lusatia. considerations which Another corresponds 21 been that and of Frisians ethnic 70,000, and sanguinis a reformed the ethnic their party suf collects of of over Czechs enjoy everyone ethnicity,” Until Yugoslav Spanish interrupted ficient education Danes the the share model” had While and notion population at to foreign respectively. living as linguistic minorities), 2 Interior, governorship based 50,000 1999, a (which a copious successor including million been of to Roma an and constitutional stunning marker and ficially these of but and of 8.9% of in Overall, activity emphasis which in influence citizenship the German and citizenship citizenship. West each, Carinthian living / ethnic there Frisians in is their assimilationist Sinti Portuguese information people. are “objective” of of Germany, 23 blood the recognized of Schleswig-Holstein challenged national might of Frisia the while the In are respective membership the Germans Austria, in in regardless largest citizenship Carinthia on the appears recognition German 7.3 four based), in Italians Germany Carinthia, Nazi laws has be “objective” Slovenes and It Sorbians case victory million Schleswig-Holstein, because over on responsible minorities is ethnic been group “ethnic like by Niedersachsen. Party model from such territories, curious the with of from contrasted number population. of in was 100,000 Nazi, studied Frisians, France, for in “foreigners” ethnic background and where both and today citizenship. it counted the in as the the a 2001 Frisians,” only ethnicity. based over and Austria, covered that particu- France, Roma Soviet, special nation, for almost social- Soviet back- states while com- is con- with con- they (see first this the the the By by on 20 in 24 / Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 absolutist model models—an German German The Germany’s in description of to and venting never Auslandsdeutsche of such 10 revoked Britain, Source Yugoslavs Poles Portuguese Spanish Greeks Italians Turks Roma Sorbs Frisians Danes Name was statist-imperial Minderheiten the its these the years, other TABLE devoted German as historical citizenship been : of Danish Compiled the non-German the citizenship the definition and while the Eastern state, to of Poles US, 3 Approach in citizenship older to citizenship Population strictly Germany, 2,014,311 citizenry O the Deutschland definition context. minority 125,131 662,691 276,753 132,283 359,566 586,089 100,000 the f the allowing ficial and 50,000 60,000 50,000 law who from origins (in European model ‘preservation of law latter Canada. passed residents tie minorities Russia, reside the Schmalz-Jacobsen to as of to was law attested German of and of . for Ethnicity of acquire a Germans Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein citizenry with citizenship countries) of community 26 the internally in the in the evolution of and Here Territory 1913 Germany. Lusatia Romania, almost citizenry of emerging None None None None None None None None Germany at citizenship citizenship German the the since who the as I crystallized most will from inconsistent” “was German unanimous of a and time, of had The 1913 as community the in citizenship (mostly populous national limit descent, acquiring led Hansen, of a to the lived German new the territorial Language Volkstum ethnically German by myself the Baltics, support debates immigrant law outside the minorities state.” because the unusually Kleines Yes Yes Yes Yes if No No No No No No No citizenship. of state’s Pan-German of they to former .’” rights? ethnicity community, etc.), descent. 28 1913 and, non-German a Germany 29 around REGIMES The theoretically “it wished Lexikon in approach laborers The strict as some Germany would stood the attack the 27 This pre-1913 by Of it product League, to, and “Before for representative ficial OF der of displayed and between allowing from reverse amendment to and individuals ETHNICITY whom on (1997) more consistent Yes Yes Yes Yes ethnischen No No No No No No No informed minority? ethnicity a the by Poland system of newer which 1913 both than pre- two had old the for 31 an Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 contiguous Empire Bismarck central and to The East, there joined pockets than to enslavement into was this recognition action, dif political influence testifies. state granted Denmark. cation, other tician concessions In inexplicable S. 32 contend AKTURK At The The ference be a the decisive, From tory conditional From period, central Schleswig-Holstein an shut plebiscite. had were the three people included Alsace-Lorraine such discourse question Germany, minority German and S-H rather outright to as with in a an communities end an in on were state-national does no As (Weimar) as the ethnonational a of hence times territory, the S-H, a to favor ethnic 80% hostility than (Poles, Austria, was than sub-regions of Bismarck consequence as in celebration ethnic the as not north, “What not The best debates, regimes well World campaign of Austria, which conditional the in descent. the voted citizens?” of statist larger “objective understanding powerful translate Ukrainians, 1920. plebiscite as example Republic. dif an to Prussian, state-national Germany Russia some acquainted should point in unconditional, War could ference the point also for (S-H) acute were and 31 the that than in the of for In of principle of jus I, remaining of was / automatically Germany, enough voted of territorial ethnic multi-ethnic chose Jews ethnicity” assert Soviet of created the West, view, the Germany international awareness region to took soli the Unlike them view, often lost Russians, which a which with of physical north, do topic is for Denmark point it central that is place point its in Union, it and only of acceptable, is translated territorially to for on rejected is remaining German Austria, in notions Germany too, the citizenry, emerged is jus I the also prove the of 75% the of the of myself the Germany. other Nazi peoplehood; in of into parts strength extermination soli Poles debate part. negotiations. view: territorially kind ethnic and made Danes German over two view northern because that voted . of ethnically 30 which ideas. into even Germany. Slavs) of in of belong,” anymore. Turkey as belong in Furthermore, contiguous citizenship. Germany. zones, The of they the attachment for German dif triumphed in 33 Poland exclusion the Germany, if attachment for – it ferences, But Germany shrank Danish unconditional only The transition so of grounds are part on ethnically based to joining 32 corresponding through non-German specific Nonetheless, (Jews, long The the / loyal the “no northern academia 34 but opposition Eastern of that with A more Following border and recognition minority without while that citizenship contrary, door to the which other Schleswig-Holste there and statist-minded to from Gypsies) Denmark matters: the rights, the based discrimination the central likes jus once than the of part Prussia Reich state in and was scholarly (Wilhelmine) were later German soli ethnicities. that the making assimilation central Germans rights to of this citizenship af 80% jus the Jews in exerted was subjected or and is of that firmative S-H while northern it Prussian terri- German evolved soli several demar- not. state’s forced in had ethnic in more to is were were poli- state , S-H that any and the in. no its its in in to in Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Judentum ness. human and and the notions Sorbian movements conjuncture autonomy. Sorbians back as Should segregated of externally citizens. German finally Czechoslovakia). seen Sorbian welcomed ment. association of (SSW), The in throughout Berlin Germany most theme and the Soviet While In Danes, place the S-H, the Sorbs. GDR, Mozambican Danes its solidarity the to as as It solution. As given in Union in rights. Nazi a reduction sending of Vietnam. 35 first-hand to while is Federal leaders the autonomy Vietnamese are Sorbian public , the and Frisians, Angolan, 1924. The imposed a national secure “actually and an the As The South from “Domowina” (Sorbian exceptional of Slavic neighboring full emphasis 40 confines and captured 1960s impossible being programs the Soviet If Christoph 37 foreign Sexual between creation Republic demanded 38 the 41 citizenship autonomy “foreigners” the the to the Schleswig. the victims Sorbian Frisians peace self-determination Poles, Though can Cuban, minority, a one and mother Domowina) represented woman educational impression German GDR problem occupation of the regulations on pressures be among cannot one 1970s were of of this of Slavic Ernst theme.” and of Schulte racial state. organized activist Chinese, that decided seen became the Sorbian this Germany rights refused 42 get and the who Sorbians paper, lacking Sorbs population witnessed The of postwar the write Barth Lusatia pregnant, seemed acute three by and big as has purity. that 36 (Soviet educational of the came surrounding of writes Jan days the only to a more autonomy Greek, Therefore ficial but established around in cultural East brother anything (FRG), in prolonged members spearheaded abort residue not ethnic-racial Jews Skala “showcase” suf settlement. the be to Germany. a of suf Mozambicans the to the occupation) so minorities than fered in Germany. genuine the only of violent annexed give fice Hungarian, her the de-politicization could ficial minority socialist rights as (Sorbian his and and GDR of more these highlights I 160 child, to South citizenship it substantially to cultural discussions the cannot Soviet-powered introduction the leader to cultural “Nowadays construction conflict possibility of a of prevent consciousness members as never in non-Germans to about “Association say At state Sorbian she Landtag the rights Schleswig national part and Germany territory Korean, Czechoslovakia, and possibly the and that of Danes was the of of Germanness become demands. over domestic but any and over Vietnamese the REGIMES fered end of linguistic the in decisive under the immediately ethno-cultural in only (regional self-determination to of the also Polish, S-H legislation is after municipal in Sorbian sexual Voters socialist the this of do Jews cost-free ethnic that of Leninist-Stalinist were Deutschtum having Sorbian contiguous a “true” 39 World Nazi the ended ethnic-cultural beginning, few Minorities” justice World issue OF developed Nonetheless, role autonomy Vietnamese, suf and Association reminiscent parliament) encounters. which most categories. ETHNICITY were nationalist extremists friendship territorial rule, fered deported were gave question abortion councils with German that War Jewish- War to move- basic both with was und and this put the the the the the 33 II. II, in in to in Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 ethnic leaves 1980s the without opment was law hypotheses land the “Euroregion were esting have in S. 34 include German trophe structure “Germans” acquired who ority born, itical 1993, the Danes, occupation been of ship. German population generations, minority Germany example AKTURK Why After While children Denmark regime Euroregion basic hailed, is 45 even actually a is accused had or societal “Germany, to Germany understanding legal in still of In Frisians, unwilling and 86 otherwise in a did citizens state the in pay of shows citizenship the is World structure received stark been decisive born of years, much was that justifiably, Germany, put resident and not the Danes exclude can and debate” since the become of DM10,500 context ethnicity. continued contract contrast, (uniting in to devoid giving away German and approaching legislation and Turkish War that of Germany a German to the less be lived foreign place a—in representative and the of foreign Turkish accept of signs Sorbians of from of citizenship a in II. even of the of the liberal as from up Germany [i.e. Frisians kind beginning of for 1997 German fered. Danish a to over The the protection (approximately the state a “guest Danish Turks, a parents conflict. regime Danish citizenship the revolutionary this seriously a document have relating citizenship] intervention. the of descent Germany present long 1990s. Allied 2 than inflamed a as has exotic political any served First, million, million and most for citizenship. workers” law have showcases an independence democracy, stipulated context time, of of not its further for at occupation to acute in German advocate What ethnicity. as ethnic group, their promising French been least peaceful as the changed law nationalist 1986, for minority within Jews amended community. Volksdeutsche hundreds there breakthrough. US$5,000) the This totally . ethnic illustrates recruitment eight centuries, famous deprived the . change that of 47 remains conflicts showcase . cannot parts ” and as and 46 its were border protected is As . much at contrasting “showcase” put not . a unfamiliar—death years. Chancellor and in borders. . a consciousness Roma American emotions, of least result The human of domestically 1999 an when to to only af from Direct Su of thousands in is revisions” foreigners’ Schleswig since immigrated ¨ ford of return, 48 from every mayor end It ssmuth one in German that Eastern of minorities, ethnic as The is to a 8,000 The rights 1961. it to of past to also the foreign genocide allow 1913, legal Kazakhstan Kohl’s since counterparts, of the Turk leave amended did exposed of the the Turkish-German 1913 toleration, of which an report multi-ethnic citizenship (8,166 the in and Europe.” in activists While ethnic induced parents Holocaust, rights in for status “those despite people who to interesting outside threat choosing EU of intervention ‘amt’ but law “the 1999? fer the survivors, Germany the are version to permanently projects) argued did the exclusionist and was had in of in on citizenship . 43 stunningly Sonderjyl- only decried the minorities change who and the . be of the . for not favor ” Turkish Yet Kazakh citizen- Several Russia, to who but its 44 largest passed life devel- exact) catas- of inter- yet three early were min- have alter This pol- that and and and the the the . of in in in to . it . Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 heritage.” increasingly Su 2050), trends “Germany respectively. of loyalty Tower Christened blood famous positions long service Habsburg, The Regime the ranging and without three as favor nation elections ship vote, and for German sciousness Azerbaijan, political of Soviet ¨ fice, Following ssmuth ethnic a the major Russian the other so period multicultural might explanations of to much could (the nationalities immigrants of to future. to as finance a of from economy overwhelmingly scene, multiculturalism. are British 50 were the groups more newspapers. suggested Babel the people to among is Ethnicity Ottoman, Tatar Georgia, German of have 52 The self-evident like Empire increasingly be acquire in state the the state time The staf setting intensive minister the actuality royalty. to Islam nobles, linking induced by Bolshevik appealed who fed stenographic the that are “many are policy. appearance the entitled the impact population and before that the in and Turkish by above-mentioned up plausible an determined and language have the tsarist Armenia. that Sergei Soviet Italian and leftist decided Germans, of “in focus a national the indispensable Some Prussian peoples’ However, Catholicism of the to Soviet country one citizenship Revolution, been citizenship the many votes Social an a empire. Bolshevik of records on sympathies is architects, technocratic and Witte; state intellectuals to of intellectual by social popular republics It inclusion. Union expected instrumental the membership including the states, republic” for other of is it a Democrat the cannot few possible is statements It nobility immigration,” and their were minorities, of part consciousness, reform construction is not was and Revolution minority ethnic German where thousand Dutch parliamentary not of the in to Orthodoxy parties vision of were sea in be Empress possible by the not – Estonia, the to decline had the inextricably a Green Romanov in in to attributed groups change the speak painters, functioning the of Russian ethnic already few which the politicians this Ottoman the of nationalisms been in votes. political was end and and, strength to Catherine socio-economic coalition a political Latvia, from it Turks was survival change, of gave among political French; adjudicate heritage hearings a preceded codification of will dynasty a conceiving A Federation to given Cossack REGIMES “service a politicized bound and third the 82 leaders, bottom-up German the prerequisite of who Lithuania, henceforth of community. to German including the of Habsburg to important Turkish sprung Cold the landscape appearance but plausible attachment expand to was up and are 60 military between a state” Great OF demographic editorials of bureaucrats, of competitive service engineering economy. with since ethnic War. million ETHNICITY eligible related influenced leftists Germany pressures hundreds onto heritage, Ukraine, for become like and citizen- sources realms, of 51 expla- ethnic where For 1917 units, them ficial con- high of and and All the the the 35 by by in in to 49 a a Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 political traditional) elite the Stalin 200 graphers most region insisted ethnicity: Academy mately in to census ethnic ethnic people’s portion from S. 36 siia action.” through mized corresponding major amounting passports mobility incentive AKTURK The Lenin’s Ethnographers accept order in regime knowledge population ledge; was power [T]he Volga (nativization) ethnic society. and significant the divided territories, by traditionally of itself the 59 Soviet identities the related that of identity. self-identification to formation and production on as any in for focus, and generate tsarist basin mass-level commitment locus Quotas of to korenizatsiia groups. and the ascribe the Soviet such was religion ethnic that Though Soviet that inappropriate a Sciences, to the Muslim socialist / contrary, Soviet of were “second to or while 58 in imperialism came what ethnically an experts shaped political in of of to was for propiska Turkic their of nationalities ficial identification an the As Russian assertion authorities the the split and Union—or some identifications individuals knowledge native are up experts Central ethnic to encouraged, it a Soviet how state ethnic production and principle, categories region.” and serfdom.” depended power. with compensating political clan now and primarily linguistic answers, ethnic based system local the cities played cadres of the identity promoted Union. the a on known were Asia republics. in managed regime But list cannot power, 57 policy in elites af Siberia any identity identities and to through which ideas consequence from Despite firmative This of the froze pursuit between it 54 such into a of an in the identity indicate other lists, significant as 191 to saw provided. was party-state be the important the since ethnographic 53 retained key ethnic ethnic prevented is five that to developing each as maintained ethnic categories easily narodnosti these its modern The perhaps of non-Russian were ethnic their such strictly categorize “Muslim,” Tatarstan action components could lands ethnic the that upward the citizen. groups. degree formulation experts By particularism disentangled of did populations politicized, objections, census a internal role state. and republics Soviet a compiling the Moscow, such and better bounded not that republics, “scientific that into (peoples) larger 56 on social knowledge peoples, and 55 and in Soviet first and have To other groups were the “Experts takers “scientific The the tribal of reflect genuinely local “scientists” be Bashkortostan, passports, example to a of information from Muslim mobility. critical an the created local to monopoly Leningrad, by making sure, policies act citizenry most ask and and this and for elites were that identities overwhelming detachment” specific alliance territory. of the people’s further by on the the identity in policy the fixed salient ethnographic had conducting classification,” of participated a instructed exercise helping multicultural, (reformed of party-state Central of 1926 While the autonomous on “af about tremendous Muslims held into been territories, the korenizat- and of questions remained know- objective firmative was although socially. primary Russian Internal in census, almost ethno- the the USSR social about of victi- other from their Asia inti- pro- not the or in Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Germans, War enabled locations. from nal concurrent structures Ethnic ethnic Gorbachev, promoted multi-ethnic exhaustive during Turks, Source Jews Germans Kirgiz Bashkirs Estonians Turkmens Mordvins Tadzhiks Latvians Chuvashes Moldavians Lithuanians Georgians Armenians Azerbaijanis Kazakhs Tatars Uzbeks Bielorussians Ukrainians Russians The homelands,” II, TABLE : territories groups, were most categories the Hosking, a the 60 list within for including with week’s system not exiled systematic urban atrocious Internal 4 of systematic which Population a the The “Punished such their in single purportedly centers to long ideological of First most the constituted Central as autonomies passports turn ethnic application member train the discrimination, Western Socialist of notably like Peoples” in the Germans, 114,114 Asia journey 37,253 created categorization Soviet New of 7,913 1,002 1,285 1,397 1,400 1,470 2,214 2,326 2,692 2,787 2,940 3,622 4,968 6,015 main 1959 of that 17% 989 989 969 fensive State but and the borderlands the of York, nationalities who nationalities not of indicated for , Poles, in this Siberia, Chechens, Politburo 524. the of not deliberately at the were Chicago, policy Nazi the Soviet to Bulgarians, purposes in up mention alleged all-Union to in Germany. every hailed the to Crimean at policy the population and Central half lightening census, 137,397 overloaded Soviet 12,456 42,347 of from to 9,436 1,811 1,936 1,906 1,371 1,020 2,028 1,192 2,898 1,439 1,751 2,968 2,851 3,571 4,151 5,477 6,556 6,317 Los citizen’s 1979 societal of and level. occurred af have Ethnic Tatars, their firmative Angeles. Asia Union the Koreans, internal REGIMES by speed. collaborated Until traditionally population fragmentation. ethnic 1989 groups cars. 61 and (in in and Minorities action the the thousands) passports, During were OF (see other Thanks last with background Meshketian late ETHNICITY perishing Table provided deported with years Muslim 145,072 “exter- remote 1930s, World 10,030 16,686 44,136 to 1,027 2,718 4,217 1,459 3,355 3,068 3,983 4,627 6,791 8,138 were 1989 and the 37 4). an of Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 category two powers in mies on passports from ascriptive city Soviet of the Russian might the the the scientific” original regime tice Moscow, replace the ect purged. “anti-cosmopolita a by truly in local S. 38 of borders 1991 that and third AKTURK Yeltsin Regardless Remarkable Surprisingly power the one national the ethnic challenge workings Soviet intentions Institute Minister changes elections can it Gorbachev’s within amazing and showed the driving have state. was era day, and 62 of the that than foundation, be ethnic in as which central EU, as understanding background ethnic and ethnicity Union proponent sovereignty. internal constructed election described final including Russia also the Stalin After an related of of of to their in striking forces of of in which Putin also enough, Ethnology infringement ethnic groups Soviet new would Nationalities Russia encouraged chapter Yeltsin illuminating authorities, the regime in nism “glasnost,” the (such had purportedly passports, to the since from is behind in national(ist) change of denounced were as those ethnic continuity and the deprive ethno-federalism, at the campaign” drawn 63 by the are demographic by throughout the “institutionalized are as and of in the below In nationalities the non-ethnic at fact dismantling Stalin. Tatarstan), not paradoxically 1997 ethnicity. the fighting the revision still it the the cleansing in his of the aggregate the in despite 1920s the in ethnic was free change familiar that the more privacy, of five political intact post-communist close the with the Russian revision, leaders. devious Soviet The of possible regional internal and Khrushchev’s the the 1920s also in Central republics inscription balance protests provinces This 1953, the powerful even associates, policy. in of in territorial the ethno-federalism. Nazis level. fair) saga first Putin while Russia leadership “Enemy regime Russian occurred Academy potential Soviet more multi-nationalism” is too, person and the to passports, governors through Asian an to major of 66 of from In on first deport of still communist-era there also alike, elect institutional ethnic The successful the Soviet today. of 1997 past their dissolution the Russia. of a internal Nations” “thaw,” of created the through of states definitive supporting individual revisions newly of in to ethnicity which change their front. all Valeri was and both ethnic theoretical Yeltsin ethnic the with Sciences, utilizing targeting seek The successors citizens 65 and later Since passports a supergovernors own major found in Brezhnev’s The in There executive and Russian direct high-ranking strong assimilation Tishkov, and categories after of republics. preserving answer based to some abolished persisted party using ethnic announced the governors. “Punished Soviet the the so took of the discursive who right Russian components was appointment the collection scholarly in Chechen much Soviet regional cannot Soviet bosses on regime Soviet their to background the place fiat. also (since dissolution implementing 64 also experience “stagnation,” an administered the the in the of In Federation director Jews his to hinges objective, executive As Peoples,” served discourse remained be / Union the ethnicity structure of an question the with pressure Russian internal oversee autono- in descent of “social plan given. of in ethni- indir- prac- form were from non- data the the the on of of as to in in is Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Only actual they ians, Muslims, rity and legal where codify Islamic Turkey gians, Kurds, the nation Habsburg thus non-Muslims to population, The Regime from entire hereditary that Muslims. Greek, Turkish, hence and genized and Lausanne miniscule minorities Turkey The the Abkhaz, languages the the Ottoman Turkey, hinders are making Chaldeans, minority reading Armenians, Greeks, resulting practice, instruction ethnic [ only state. Laz, to rights post-Ottoman millet-i refused Muslims sectarian of not both 69 to and and then, Turkey. had and Treaty categories. Ethnicity and Macedonians, Following non-Muslims Muslim. Albanians, Greece, the assimilation Islamic of this of respectively. could categories Greece countries, in Hungarians, Empire ethnic important tsarist hakime Turkey in and to all a trade Article Nestorians, Ottoman in reading divisions Greeks, in the of bureaucratic attribute The Turkish Greece are be 72 minority backgrounds. agreed faith in 1923, and and transfer Republic It systems. was ]” a did codification found Arabs, even 39 Turkey creating harbors implications, and very included became as in and Tatars, and Jews, system the was not citizens, a because Population of (except minority the to minorities which and more dynastic obstructs languages even the of Jews narrow facilitates exchange Azeris, even transfer incorporation a media, The Poles, of since Yezidis Karamanli historically and the 98% prerequisite more Lausanne many so in in Turkey could are of established these recognize norm status Muslim Turkmen, today. Western since definition Bosnians, state 1923 Roma, the Armenians, Turkey Christian exchange with of the genuinely of the would traditionally are the ficially be would Cabinet in on Muslims, with Christians upward these was Christians, Treaty, corresponding interpreted They not domestic validated Serbs, and preservation blob only for all the Thrace), be as the Circassians, of considered of and recognized internationally a took non-Muslim groups rewards well some multi-confessional constituted basis available. ficially Greeks, and accepted that multi-ethnic, and minorities, which minority social Muslim Muslim who and in as threats place who other to Ukrainians, which of constituted of Turkey had Muslim allow international codify system of concerns rights, ethnicity, and mobility are the minorities REGIMES minority are as Even Chechens, been key ethnic on ethnic 2% regime majorities groups to tremendously Turkey minorities. Jews highest for ethno-linguistically ethno-linguistically (except recognized multi-confessiona a the minorities Bulgarians, including of of based demographically though the among religious ficial the minority groups the of dif rights language, as than OF well-being as in even use forums. accepted ferences Dagestanis, of in individuals the “sovereign minorities. ETHNICITY population on in Turkey. positions, fices, 71 a Istanbul) even of others. for schools such Greece service strictly of though among Assyr- homo- in mino- Geor- rights basis, ficial non- 70 and but the the 39 as of as In to 68 67 l Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Source Tatar Persian Pomak Laz Kurdish Georgian Circasssian Bulgarian Bosnian Arabic Albanian Turkish Language of could could Bosnians, (see in S. 40 Source 2005 1965 1955 1945 1927 Census and of Muslims of millet period, While AKTURK Turkey’s 1927 the Anatolia, Liberation some Table (estimate) Ottoman : : become system, become many year Compiled Compiled TABLE this and regardless Circassians, Armenians 5). refusal TABLE declined aspect or other Counterfactually, minorities. it that millet 5 minorities revolted was from from Muslim aspects 13,269,6006 to accounts was 6 70,000,000 of 31,129,854 22,804,048 18,497,801 relatively system, the Du Du recognize Islam Minority joined ethnicity. Laz, ¨ ¨ ndar, ndar, separately tacitly population particular 1927 of (see Kurds, forces which for the Tu Tu languages (total and ¨ ¨ by 11,777,810 Table rkiye rkiye preserved. minorities 1,184,446 Most Ottoman the 134,273 ethnicity Greek-Orthodox absolutely 95,901 11,465 20,554 21,774 and to Pomaks, configuration – – – – assigned with 13,762,074) 1,687 Nu Nu exclusion set Greeks 103,839 109,905 6). ¨ ¨ of 73,725 86,665 fus fus of 6,000 ficial the up legacy By Muslim among Sayımlarında Sayımlarında One and Tatars, collective a French to minorities actively sectarian Greek language, of 0.1% can of were Muslims ethnic Christians friends and to also state of Armenian-Gregorian supported rights repudiated Azınlıklar Azınlıklar set in groups division, many the Abkhaz, argue Turkey, represents up in and population 60,000 69,526 60,071 60,260 77,433 on the an and 1960 other in the enemies , . that the Turkey 157, 1927 Armenian Black in the Albanians, the basis (total 25,172,535 Muslim Greek the more 1,847,674 a 207. – Shiite 347,690 by continuation inclusion 2003 63,137 12,025 24,098 21,703 32,944 14,570 Sea Republican – – of in 27,754,820) 1,090 the than invasion religion. the state region, groups Arabs, Alevis 20,000 38,267 45,995 76,965 81,672 Jewish 1990s War the of in Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 series concern by Bulgaria, secular sought secular “common law, the deportations, Werfel’s Jews of suppress in collaborators. Muslims minorities. also organizations and reinforced af invaders, Eastern was particular, ment education tic their groups, Turkey and became example, ethnic fairs After Starting The Linguistic the anti-Semitism and the Jews, teach the a sided persisted demographic who in public remarkable of groups, of Greeks dimension, to religious borrowed willingness new 1923, Anatolia. the were education. a until wars). after of Forty and Turkey. Turkish Greece, Moiz of lived major turn since language” in during with signaled Anatolia The state sphere, assimilation the Christians occasioned state as among the an This excluded from in the 73 Jews Days “Muslims the scattered being Kohen 1930s, Werfel ef organizations in War proponent bureaucracy, mid-1940s. particular, the increase from among Christians The insignificance, and whereby fort inclusion as decimation Europe increased to 1923 invading Hundreds which were against Muslims, in War to codify the they of at friend Yugoslavia Jews Musa France. was from (Moshe be was renewed nation to there the coupled Liberation grounds into of also in the and the the of 2003. increased / non-Muslim but hindered, were were Jews, Liberation, – One anti-Semitism foreign them exclusion Jewish. interaction Dag the which enemy government of most Kemalist (secular) were 74 to Ottoman-Islamic part in of building basis also Cohen) the migrate In can new Turkey. with also public thousands on associated in Turks as and kept of notably prevented the 77 state armies, induced Armenians German, was which minorities notice of dissociation stigmatized. and the a Turkey’s Turkish writing paradigm, The was pouring 1920s nationalism, / may Turks” secularization the hostility between European took perceived Muslims to In conceived they population never 76 among foreign a crowning Istanbul, ushered new 1934, but of and account with them chronological by books the from and nation were “past” after through Muslims secular, and of these into opening against race-based nation. Turkey once between The active ficially disturbances invaders ur-Turkic the to early in them powers expanding, in other and tacitly 1923. leading while for Anatolia as leave density Kurds was of a from represent campaign late in established linguistic linguistic the a as decade-long the 1930s, articles Turkey, collaboration This and the the supported from (unrecognized) repudiated. 1930s Muslims meddled There war a Turkey. the parallel and excluded the theories REGIMES Armenians exclusion and liability. the name debate anti-minority Nazi ef of and publication in their the the undertaken apart the beginning. fort was about Circassians, and campaign which were Thrace Turkey and melting assimilation Germany. were between religious Tekin but minority in and over Balkans, of local had early the from OF Their from The (1912 of Kemalism. the codified with a Turkishness conceived also and ETHNICITY Christians, model few welcomed Christians forced Armenian a Christian Christian (a Republic domestic 1940s, Alp of employ- pot. to militant policies Muslim Despite linguis- – the foreign against did by higher ethnic which of major There 1922) Franz learn from into that and and rise For not the the the 41 in 75 a Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 bourgeoisie. tion period claim about Turkey. have Turks. groups of Jews, to it (since “Wealth during S. 42 1950s. the state attitude lenged, nation which praetorian demands recognizing most provinces ness. Kurds Anatolia, Muslims) ethnic result assimilation, tic” Cyprus. a mobs Turkey ficially was AKTURK large non-Muslims, How Kurdish economy orientation in prominent. any Laz, in destroyed persisted languages passed that of are was commerce as the because Since By background. were 80 and in and in However, number the the Tax” a no assimilation, persist and reliable listed not of One for guard The the the the result seen jeopardy, ethno-linguistic 79 ethnicity why, minorities changed Wealth economy. as Rize considered as relaxed the the example, it peasants The in 1940s, early Party in so minority a as in 82 Greek of in is spoken to of for of of law 1942, only state and despite Turkey numbers the a Table and many whom perhaps the rise the Kemalism to the fundamental 1980s, eight regime as For during significantly Tax applicable over war-induced and business population ethnic stores language does French Artvin other Turkish and identify of which a Both other remaining candidates 6 other regime, political 87% such without example, the decades? is the were the the on identity other the (1923 not the group than in due than militant did socialistic-authoritarian as of Cyprus was a and, the fundamental only was same Beyoglu, Turkish to half model, counted. recognize multi-ethnic can infamous the tenet censuses their population these category which any with not – all, Turkish. to ethnic taxation, aimed with 1950) Greeks to still for is politicized One tax a in serve period permit their the modifications dozen issue of a homeland, secularism the the three, was which long-term an the state run certain only Istanbul. Kemalism. could Wealth minorities occurred at from 81 transition 6 or or most ethno-linguistic only and at overrepresentation in tenets assigned. – eradicating by of 1960 towns segments such This make-up, ethnically of 7 and codify covers a the aims ethnic fered argue time. that Christians 1927 September extent, as salient, time Tax Ardesen change hence question and In assimilation of 1950s when census, along a the from among This at to ethnic 78 1964 was mandatory until very Kemalism Consider that identity control the of paid excessive did multiparty Defenders inclusion non-Muslim based Austrian minority all the especially put the is in 1923 applied heightened Armenians, and 1965 the the and and approximate also the (1955) Muslim much not the the background, the government Black the demands and government in military-bureaucratic of Jews territorial Hopa among to and a reveals the Muslim regime included languages were religion ficial models. lives Turkey. satisfactory wealth disproportionately through state of 2003. more democracy ownership events Sea militant in conversion ethno-linguistic overrepresenta- the there). being tensions eroded, policy of Southeastern as Greeks, the the of intrusion in coast Wealth There measure majority instituted in conscious- we courses a legitimate Greeks Also However, ethnicity, linguistic in the “linguis- deported question Istanbul Though Turkish the (among secular do expla- which of of in in same chal- were over as into Tax two and not not the the the of in in in in a a Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 only in in state’s than issue account, the privatization Islam decades. in could paper, 1990s? regime Turkish parties Since other 1980s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ã Arabic, this In If Turkey Such For in For people and “The Austria Salzburg Eisenstadt (emphasis important on M. Institute Conference/Travel Midwest World This economic, the five-decade in 2003, minorities, areas explain the den direction or from the own but Steven have the a Ladins. 2003, of This paper change left population similarities map it 1990s? Bosnian, Democrat previous who still Jahren idea Convention the versus ethnicity Turkey is television in and fourth of been Political in also were mine). of Fish, was is this and, hard benefited Turkey. speak conjuncture The demonstrates of cultural, terms since the Slavic, was not why Tyrol, (1950 If a 1918 Tyrol designated change. incorporated sweeping drafts Charles even latter “Carinthian of allowed Circassian, of Habsburg to motivated the grade Schlesinger, a of Party a not due Turkey’s South ficial did grants dialect Science company, / at speak / the 19 – However, from question see change Salzburg,” East are then, of educational, 2003) Columbia it . change to As King, controversy For through (DP) this Tyrol Barth-Scalmani take of a state broadcasting as were derived EU presentations the considerable regions very of European, the in with Republic,” foreign Association the the first Kurdish, article revision was Steven Austrian more Austria, many an TRT, polls pressures, government as volume that policies. small in provided the 32 new strong bureaucratic University, of application overall from high in due – the to 1951 than 63. and ethnic can and intervention took 1890, Sabol, regional NOTES ethnic (estimated note and of and see edited Neutrality Germany, Latin. to autonomist 1950s, at and school, continuity Conference et 50 foreign ruling included Therefore, by be the why the the the persistence Valentin, that Zaza. see and taboo al. Eurasian years (1950 teaching the Kurds New answered There by Kemalist capital to lead Association rise Gullberg, all “National obstruction did 1960s, J. between the Turkey Barkey Institute while The in Nicholas policy but and 216,400 and after had – York, tendencies by of were it Die Postwar EU with 1960), among of in 7,000 once Studies, EU happen ethnically in broadcasting Russia, favorable of not (Austrian) the 1970s, Idee state. in and export-oriented Chicago, State, within about 10 minority with Identity 23 of the of has for Kernalist German-speaking 1987, Ziegler – came been first and these anti-Kemalist – von einer Europe European 20,000) the its the 2 pattern REGIMES and been in 117,500 Territory few 5 the both or foot multiparty the Hagen, ranks. to March Study but state assertive 2003 broken domestic or “Karntner Burgenland. regional April radical read regime languages, interruptions. the pressuring in , weekly group Regional at 57. policies confines the dragging. of the Italians, area Studies are and and of OF and After Why UC 2006, 20 the change in growth Nationalities of changes identities of ETHNICITY 1980s commented – right-wing Kurds taken after elections? inhabitants not Identity coalitions programs Republik” last 23, the ethnicity Berkeley. mountain Empire in Identity: did and Turkey and and and of 83 in 1910 came more 2006. eight most The into and this and and it the the the , the the 43 in of 9 . is ” . Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 22. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 19. 18. 17. 20. 21. S. 44 24. 23. 9. 7. 8. 6. AKTURK ernorship from Minorities graph The English cite the may definition Ibid., Treaty, ged favor Mayors Barker, Elste, Putz, Ibid., Moser, Ibid., Ibid. Plebiscites Auschwitz.” the returned Gullberg, held which Danish current union Hatay (British Turkey from Jews The “Since Holzer Holzer Anlagen Roth, For 23214_en.pdf; plateId Ibid., Deutschland Schmalz-Jacobsen plebiscite the the results ‘Gypsy first First be are the “Die the and assimilation 132. 130. 29. 5 The 1, Karntens in with ¼ resulted – the – and and “Sprachliche political and German ethnic The of in / advocated borders Iraq), German of dubious. to 11. raw,property two two 1938, Ministry Broschueren Report of underestimates State, Gypsies Radetzky Croat Karntner this inter-war Since discusses Burgenland were the reveals. Mu Mu to Turkey , Slovenes Carinthia, camps’ numbers is other 58. ¨ ¨ renounce minorities INTERNET Council and nz, paper nz, which even in braune controversies speakers Territory and part the of border. submitted rather of “Ethnic union “Ethnic met minorities plebiscites Hatay and Slowenen March a period, Austria, knowledge bilingual the more und the are of ¼ of of / resulted are year 1999 after see of publicationFile.pdf Elite with the Carinthia their legal Lackenbach than Hitler mine. Interior: only), the Hansen, not soziale with and Europe’s from resounding (French , Diversity Sully, Diversity (accessed by 1 / the later. popular, 1945. . ethnic . First_Report_submitted_by_the_Federal_Id_23214_en,tem to mother little ethnic surrounding while communities) framework und not Identity Germany, in the in resorted the elected exercise Filla of Identitat a A http: . directly And Plebiscites Western die Federal the Kleines Syria). defeat vote opposition Framework Slovene Contemporary self-assertion. in plebiscites democratic et tongue in 5 than , Kirche,” and // Slovene only 120. Eastern local al., February to Eastern for the www.bmi.bund.de though of der of / FPO af a plebiscites Salzburg-Maxglan, Among Republic Am First_Report_submitted_by_the_Federal_Id_ Thrace a independence presence fected on look Lexikon rights these the in representatives small ¨ Slowenen in from 45. the favor Rande language leader Convention Austria,” ethnic Austria,” in nationalist Burgenland at 2007). the . four Translations established History Social On . number these, the (Greece), Schleswig-Holstein . of the of in conditions Only in der Jo O the ¨ definition groups’ ¨ linguistic Germany the German.” sterreichs in rg Saarland German-speaking is 721. Democratic 698. a whole from Karnten,” Haider’s of / ethnischen an of a for region Zeitgeist Internet (the plebiscite few Austria and the Batumi for imprecise the the “The from minority French under so-called demography of they under 7,000 of , and them Carinthia (some Ibid., Protection 37. ghetto national accession / the other , Nazi Content 27 of side have in 148 (Georgia), was which Syria, Minderheiten in Gypsies – Article the 700. Jewish status, measure Austria, determined ethnic 28. – the have languages Conference policy of also majority 52. held interwar belonging decided / of and to 1955 and Common they Lodz tended 25, available Slovenes residents encoura- National survived the only both against that plebis- Musul a para- State were gov- (re-) into era. and and the the by of of in in in to / Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 33. 32. 31. 38. 34. 40. 39. 42. 30. 29. 28. 51. 50. 49. 48. 47. 43. 52. 46. 45. 44. 41. 36. 35. 37. 27. 26. 25. 3 nationalen im Lesiuk, Teebken Ibid., Ibid., Germany GDR—Angolans, 1989, dence German were Kotsch, For “By Ibid., Mu Ta ( Schleswig Teebken th Leggewie, Ibid., Su Ibid., Ibid., Ludat, Ku Laborers Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Schulte, Brenner, “S Leggewie Wernicke, Ibid., “Agreement Rosenzwieg, reflections Steensen, Brubaker, the (accessed Brubaker, Available Angstlichkeit – ¨ e ¨ o ta ssmuth 11. hl, Grenzgebiet sl m B Nation-State a r im 1989, al e among sub-regional Su 127. 124. 175 139. “Law 116. 115. 31. n 122: The there permits, ti “A n o ¨ Danisch-deutsche no Minderheitenpolitik c b a ssmuth, state, Deutschtum and and “No t in il – in i G 15 was “Fru Citizenship and Citizenship ta “Schleswig Question v it complain “The Minderheiten Multi 246. “Not 60,000 from e of e the on y bl were Transit r the March and Christiansen, Christiansen, on e m ) ¨ Place es i l S the he they n ¸ . the i o German a GDPR t enocak, and t ; Long f e “Report n o we Kulti without ‘socialist the Piper, Martin s s between jus Beziehungen http: President breakdown , t Mozambicans, Reform Vietnamese, w h , re would a of of 2006). e a 40. to e n und soli r ; Procedures and ab and d Road Experience” R // e Honor,” the more (1987),” Zank, the Racism, u th Deutsche m le in Buber. Jews of www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de .’” s reason Judentum Erfahrungen e o s Nationhood Nationhood Greater to friends’ face Living Living 90,000 of ia r Reichstag, Deutschland the G e of to in n openly re e The f the of o a the dv the der ta including Independent 166 v rg in zwischen deportation, 52,000 Nationalism did the in o or Nationality ia Together Together Tu r German Concerning Cubans, Gokturk German to Fear,” Bundestag , e SBZ ia – th living n ¨ d 59. 5. vote rken 68. the sanctioned ns ei a 100,000 th in ‘I z in This r in / tv n an Poles, DDR p und a representative simply , o France in France 23 der r u in Sorben Walther inside ot i , , Melting-Pot r ( v Passport,” et Vietnamese, n the o is 1 1 – Commission he i the the l die o and b 5 2 Law Lo e 27. from al., nach b non-Soviet a rs an g – – 15,000 ¨ Pregnancy i plebiscite, e sung l , 16, 13, (n do premature and Europaischen and i GDR. front d and n t Citizenship Germany edited und y ob (1999),” o s 1988 ) dem ta t Rathenau, not 98. 49 a il i Germany von violent tu b n Germany 116 it cover. Mozambicans, . ly – Nordfriesen s y) After of t understand 50. . h Zweiten volume ” to and th on . ethnisch-nationalen e – contract refer the S B e among 18. 126 s discontinuation in 1998. un u Immigration,” i S . x xenophobic t the / Chinese.” l Transit ; t y Danish a , af Nationalitatenkongresse,” e REGIMES 804.0.html; Hermann – , Joppke, to v e 114. te Re 27. that Weltkrieg i n dissolution c the t r h workers n ve this Vietnamese (I) t o h c , brings ng b e map and e minority 5 i Der n l in Immigration exaggerated 6 e i t Go t u OF – te i o landscape. Cohen, e r , 8,000 57. on ¨ f y 137 gr s of Verband living ktu 4 t , INTERNET together ETHNICITY o h 7 at of Problemen o page f ¨ e – their n io rk – t in Pa h 57. l the 39. Women y n Cubans e et in st North o Franz a We 38 f resi- , East Rita fear and f der the the al., 2 45 t By e h s of 5 w t e . , Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 83. 82. 78. 81. 77. 79. 76. 80. 75. 72. 71. 74. 73. 70. 69. 61. 60. 68. 63. 62. 59. 58. 57. 56. 55. 54. 53. S. 46 67. 66. 65. 64. AKTURK practice tendencies See Dil-Tarih-Ku Politikaları See Aktar, Compiled Okutan, Kafaog Aktar, times Even Bretons, O Okutan, Turkey, rences, of For Ibid. Oran, 1919 in C Oran, Nur, between in Fisher, Martin, Oran, Ethnic Ibid., Ibid., Hirsch, Slezkine, Anatolia, “Muslims Walker, Slezkine, For Khalid, Ibid., For Arel, For Arel, ¸ ¨ a zcan, an the g Interwar ˘ aptay, an Tishkov’s Aksamaz, Assyrians Oran, the – Hayat / expansive, 329 “Fixing “Fixing today 111. 110 ˘ Tu Tu Tu Soviet often 1991”; Varlık Varlık Particularism,” overview, lu, The I ˙ ¨ ¨ ¨ The Empire see Af stanbul’da, see of Tek Tek Balkan Dissolution rkiye’de rkiye’de rkiye’de Lenin Corsicans, – The see firmative “The for from Tu Varlık “Race, in 3 are this , ve Crimean the ¨ ¨ Politics Turkey,” O Akturk, 3 used 270 ¨ Parti Parti rkiye’de ltu Union Vergisi Habic Vergisi the Ethnicity Ethnicity Okutan zcan, for Ottoman Jewish Kafkasya’dan in ¨ newspaper Hatıratım seen and law. r-Gelenekleriyle French of Du USSR Muslims – secular Turkey, Vergisi the Azınlıklar Azınlıklar Azınlıklar list see interchangeably Assimilation, ¨ 94. Nations ¸ Do Do ndar, ; Action o Stalin, . I ˙ in of Diyarbakır’da and ¨ ¨ Allworth, stanbul’da, g ve ˘ “Perspectives list, Tatars , of Martin, neminde neminde ve Century Azınlıklar 601 lu, Tek Muslim Koc 414 as model “Tu in in Europe”; five nationalist , “Tu Tu other 101 Gerc Kafkasya’dan ¸ see 1044, op-eds, – , ¨ and a Identity Identity ¨ – iva, Empire see Parti rkiye . , . 20; 11. ¨ , rkles 52. Communal rkles France questions. 7 Karadeniz’e 165 – ¸ , The Bilge, 4 e is Cultural 4 Suny, Azınlık Azınlık non-French their 312 Central Lazona g – ˘ Poulton, ¸ , and 1 “Af tirme” ¸ i based Diyarbakır’da Do 81. – 120 Nu . tirme” Lazlar for see , Af to 79. for ¨ ¨ Documents.” Documents.” – Assyrian Azalırken Chapter on neminde f-ı fus Kemalism,” also firmative 13. Gec migrations – its include The Arel, 23, . Politikaları Politikaları the umumi on Assyrian Asia Sayımlarında Reform Politikaları ¸ Anadolu’ya implementation ; Apartment, mis Politikaları hoped “The Soviet Lazların for linguistic O ¨ Caucasian ¸ minorities “Fixing . 8, ten zgu identity. . Azınlık Chaldean Action examples 311 ve ¨ ; Muslim for Azalırken n, Gu Bennigsen, in Experiment 86 Nationalism,” ekaliyetler.” , . ¨ – Tarihsel nu ; the – 246 Lazlar the Ethnicity 43. Go . assimilation. Okutan, ¨ Politikaları 101; or Empire mu For Azınlıklar ¨ into Muslims linguistic c – ¸ ¨ and Ottoman Experience of How and ler ze 68. , a C . ¸ 254 bureaucratic French brief Su a Yolculug Muslim ve Nestorian , Strong modification , g ˘ Tek ¨ 140 6 aptay, ryaniler in a – I ˙ – . skanları Socialist . 58. 134 Identity discussion and 27; Parti assimilation – Empire, 44. society ˘ National in – “Citizenship political u for their ; 55. . in Do the see Assyrian . obstruction the ¨ Documents.” the after neminde State For see Balkan also in migrations of disagreement Communism construction of this these autonomist the Yezidis McCarthy, Aksamaz, Promoted Basques, is Policies census. period. Azınlık States, some- in dif the fe- in to Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Holzer, Hirsch, Habic Gullberg, Go Fisher, Allworth, Barker, Arel, Elste, Filla, Akturk, B Du Barth-Scalmani, Aktar, ———. ———. Brubaker, C Brenner, Bennigsen, Bilge, Aksamaz, ¸ a a ¨ ¨ Burgenland.” Union the Question Migration, 12 Nationality 3rd Volksgruppen Journal Studia Memory Identity 1930s.” (2003): California Harvard T 2005 Strategy wick, C r g ¸ ˘ ktu ndar, k h aptay, iviyazıları, e e ¸ ¨ y December o Wilhelm Dominique. rk, First Alfred. ed. S Yakup. , Ayhan. g ˘ , Alan. o K Francine. lu, Thomas Sener. . NJ: edited Werner, Fuat. Dil-Tarih-Ku “Race, v Michael. Slovenica a Tom. Deniz, Ithaca, i Edward, Durham, 601 Soner. r e Middle of Rogers. University Ali and for e or Bedri. t Alexandre World of n Transaction U Press, International The , 1955 Karntens in – Tu Gec n Territorial a Varlık Regional the et 1997. by “Perspectives State, n National 20. i ¨ I ˙ . Assimilation, Nationalities o 2001. hsan. d Russia.” rkiye Gunda, M. NY: Vienna: Anton ¸ “Citizenship n Empire al. Crimean and Kafkasya’dan “No Eastern mis M War Deniz “Fixing Colonial – ed. / a Citizenship NC: 2007. 2005 League n a ¨ ¸ The Am Vergisi r Territory ltu d ten Cornell Press, Central k A. Nu . Rainer Place ¨ t Kafkasya’dan braune Abo: v h Duke r-Gelenekleriyle ¨ Kaes, Publishers, Identity Rande Identity: Go . o e Hermann fus Gu Muslim Slovenes Sovereignty of National Wilhelm n Berkeley: Studies R ¨ Relations Ethnicity Tatars ¨ World ktu H of u Nations: nu 1992. of Sayımlarında ve s Abo Papers a on ¨ ¨ and University University s Policies Asia: g Mu mu CSA, and rk, and Elite i and Honor.” a e O “Tu , ¨ Anadolu’ya ¨ n n ¨ Assyrian . National edited sterreichs: ze . , nz. , 40, Anton Akademi Kemalism: Austria Stanford: Council Braumu of ¨ e Identity: Chicago: O J. David . Nationhood 130 rkles d 1997. Su University 25 1960. in t Klagenfurt, 23, s Ethnographic t in REFERENCES W. ¨ Carinthia: no. . o “Ethnic Karadeniz’e in ryaniler A m In Identity ¸ (2002):134 Years by Carinthia f tirme” Lazlar no. Press, a Press, Kaes, Interwar t ¨ 3 e Kurpian, n Germany Nationalism.” Azınlıklar Gramling, Communism ller, r versus for , Gu (2004): The University E Stanford Go a 4 University Ein ¨ n m Turkish of nther ¨ (1995): . Eurasian d Diversity . and Universitats-Verlagsbuchhandlung, p c 2005. 2002. of ¸ Politikaları Istanbul: Principle Documents: in Istanbul: ler i H Russian Ljubljana, Beitrag A r e Turkey.” California a and Tyrol – : France b David Knowledge and 86 National ve Lazların in Bischof . M 55. s b University I ˙ eds. – Nationalism u stanbul: 697 Transit: u I ˙ other Press, in l of skanları 101. r and / t Brigitte g i zur Hemispheres: Dominance. Salzburg.” Zvi-Geyik, e in of Sorun the Gramling. – Chicago t E Germany h . Nations and and 724. m National n East and Istanbul: Post Eastern Press, Soziologie The Minority i 2000. p Soviet Tarihsel c C i Nation ¸ and r S . Vienna: Yayınları, Germany e iviyazıları, Press, Anton Mazohl-Wallnig. o Istanbul: European s Habsburg c Rise . REGIMES i and Press, forthcoming B e the and Union: t in Berkeley: 2001. In o Self-Determination, i Austria: A I ˙ e and u letis Problem s 1986. and l Making Yolculug the Pelinka. The Historical Transit: der d Nationalism a Hermagoras, Austrian e . n 1979. ¸ r Nart, Migration, d im, 2000. Cambridge, : Research Minorities 2000. o Fall A Tufts ¨ Territories W N OF sterreichischen a Revolutionary e 2000. The University t ˘ . s of i 1993. u New 2006. o t ETHNICITY Nation of New v . n University Overview Historical i the “National - 1982. e B Istanbul: Passport Case w 9, u Papers, Bruns- 1955 1997. , i Soviet in York: l 1 no. d after MA: 9 and i the the 47 n 9 of of 7 g – 4 . . . Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 Lesiuk, Leggewie, Leggewie, Ludat, Ko Ku Joppke, Hosking, S. 48 Khalid, Ko Kafaog McCarthy, Martin, Piper, O Okutan, Nur, Moser, Oran, O Poulton, Schmalz-Jacobsen, Schlesinger, Roth, Putz, ¨ ¨ zcan, zgu ¨ AKTURK Rowohlt, 1990. blemen tl S 1955 Opolu, Cambridge, Border University 1923 sity Britain Papers sitesi Brookfield, Istanbul: Vienna: heiten Volk sity Papers Foreign ts c hl, ¸ o ic i ¨ ch v r Rıza. n, hu Gertraud. b a Joseph. Baskın. ˘ Jorgen. Nicola. of of , , e Irina. lu, – – Yelda. Manfred. von M. ng Wieslaw. Adeeb. n S Terry. Christian. Yayınları, M. D 2005 1939 in , Hugh. el . California Salzburg, 1997. Geof Area 28, 28, e s en Arslan im New Claus, Verlag Hayat Policy Justin. m ow Claus. t Recai. C I ˙ Deutschland l ¸ Bru 1993. e letis “A a Thomas de a of f no. no. Grenzgebiet. , . Racism, je The . Tu The VT: g , ˘ MA: frey. I ˙ ¨ . The edited La Ithaca, s “Die atay. stanbul’da, ¨ ti The ¸ dern: York: ed Aabenraa: California “The Question im, rkiye’de B sc . “Sprachliche and 1 1 ve Bas zo Danisch-deutsche “Muslims Lazlar . fu Multi ra Radetzky Immigration “Schleswig Vienna: 2004. Ashgate, he Cornelia, ¨ Af 1982. (2000): (2000): na M Harvard Press, Politics n r The ¸ 2004. Hatıratım Tek Karntner er. firmative d Zafer Be by Gesellschaftskritik, O. Studien i : Nationalism Muslim Oxford NY: n e L n d . sa Kulti: Varlık . Deniz Parti a b e First Austrian Azınlıklar: Munich: of Istanbul: z r u tz 2007. Press, Institut he Wilhelm rg Diyarbakır’da Eine Cornell 29 45 Ha S ¸ un March in 1998. of the University enocak, and it is zum Slowenen – – . University gs Do lk Experience”: en Ottoman ch und Action Experience Socialist Muslim Spielregeln Go and Vergisi Vol. 43. 66. Greater ¨ he Ge p Darstellung en ¨ Georg neminde 1998. o ktu Beck’sche . for and rr Neutrality Mehrheiten- C l soziale rc University ¸ the New i La Erfahrungen ¨ Kavramlar, Braumu sc 3. t ¸ iviyazıları, eds. i rk, e k Empire: Graenseregionsforskning, ha n k Citizenship: Cultural Istanbul: Gerc Nation-State: l d Press, Europe: Hansen, i Fear.” i und State: Anton n ft e g ˘ York: Press, Deutsche 1982. s i Azınlık Azalırken un h Identitat d in ¸ fu ¨ U ¨ a e e ¨ ller The die d z u g r r ˘ Reihe, aus in the e 1992. p i Press, d In Nations / die . r SB A Kaes, ta The 1999. ie i Reform: Population 1996. Minderheitenproblem Teori, Universitats-Verlagsbuchhandlung, Kirche.” Altındag Istanbul: eds. Postwar n National in rc Politikaları Germany Z e History polnischer Balkan s . t Vielvo h Ethnic Tu / . a der der I Overlook i DD 1997. ¨ a s Istanbul: v Kleines 2001. The and rken—Das t t s a l Lozan, / and i n Lo Slowenen R ˘ c ¨ Ve b Jadidism , h lkerrepublik ¨ Diss., David United Kaynak Europe: u Minorities States, of Minorities 1968. e sung n rl l: in from a Nationalism So ag c . Tu Lexikon Sicht the Transit: h Istanbul: I ˙ Press, Belge, r ¨ c ¸ b fu Faculty von m 1998. d Gramling. ¨ e Mevzuat, 1800 Ende States, e r Soviet n 1919 Yayınları, Z . in m in p B The a Opole: o ethnisch-nationalen e 1995. m in Karnten.” li Central Z in . 1996. r der to l Nation ti der am w a – i N I ˙ Britain n Domestic of n k stanbul the Germany, e 1991.” Union in o 1912.” - . la ¨ i ethnischen B P rdlingen: t I ˙ Beispiel Geduld Theology, e r Berkeley: c ¸ r ot the Instytut n Danish Y a tihat, 2002. n sd Asia a and W d and y Soviet am e In Bilgi from Nationalities Nationalities el ı n n . tk b . Uygulama c Roots Migration, : Kein and Hamburg: ı u Germany Karntens Berkeley: – V r l Rotbuch, Slaski 1972. r ı i Minder- German g k e Univer- Univer- U e Within ¨ Union, r , g , niver- o Great ¨ 20 20 : einig f Pro- of f D e 0 0 n 0 0 w i a e - ...... Downloaded By: [University of California] At: 01:12 30 July 2007 ———. Schulte, Suppan, Suny, Sully, Steensen, ———. Su Slezkine, Valentin, Teebken, Zank, Walker, Wernicke, ¨ edited Friesen nationalen Soviet Transit: Entwicklung Ethnic Stuttgart: David German Berkeley: Verlag and MD: New ssmuth, Ronald Melani Migration, Wolfgang. York: Rowman Edward The The Christoph, by Gramling. Union Arnold. Particularism.” des Thomas. Hellwig. Yuri. Andrea, – Christian. und Rita. Nation Reimer Danish Reclam, University Soviet Jewish Minderheiten Karntner A. St. Grigor. . im Sorben. “The Stanford: “Report W. A & Martin’s Die 1955 20. and “Fru and Die The Contemporary ed. Kay Experiment Berkeley: Border Littlefield, Century Dissolution: “The 1993. USSR Revenge Jahrhundert ¨ Eva Landesarchives, o he Deutschtum ¨ – Idee Migration, of Beitrage Holander German sterreichischen 2005 Slavic of Beziehungen Long Stanford California Press, in Regions Maria . the einer as Princeton: Deutschland , University 2003. . of edited a Review Road New Independent 1998. Sovereignty Communal zu the and Melting-Pot: . History “Karntner Christiansen, 1955 . University Munich: und Flensburg: enier Press, York: Past: to Thomas by zwischen 53 1992. the Judentum: – Princeton Volksgruppen: of Deniz 2005 of und (1994): Tagung forthcoming Nationalism, German California Oxford Oldenbourg, Austria Apartment, Republik” Commission and Steensen. Press, , die European Go edited Multiculturality eds. Sorben ¨ the Europaischen University 414 ktu Ein u ¨ University Passport.” . ber 1993. Living ¨ New Breakup rk, Press, – by Disput 52. Bredstedt: 2006. in Tendenzen und zwei Revolution, or 1983. Anton Center Deniz York: on den How Together: Nordfriesen 2007. Press, Minderheiten Immigration.” In unter Press, of Jahren Nationalitatenkongresse.” Kaes, for Germany Routledge, in Go the a Nordfriisk REGIMES ¨ Socialist 2004. ktu ihrer Juden Minority Historical and 1998. Soviet ¨ The 1918 and rk, (I) the gesellschaftlichen in Anton aus Minorities David / Der Union in 1990. State Collapse 19 OF Transit: In Instituut, Rights, Deutschland Deutschland . Verband Perspective Germany ETHNICITY Klagenfurt: Kaes, . Gramling. Promoted Lanham, Nation 2001. in of 1991. and der the the 49 In in , . .