What is Europe?
Ask the question around you: what do Europeans have in common? The three spontaneous answers from the public are: “race”, “religion” and “territory”. Unfortunately, the first of these three answers is obviously absurd: the European population is deeply heterogeneous, because of immigration as much as of the diversity of its indigenous tribes. The second is more insidiously so, because a large majority in Europe belongs to a Christian tradition. But Europe was never united from a religious viewpoint, and non Christian minorities have always been present: Jews, Muslims, and also the original pagans, who were still very prominent during the first half of the Christian era.
Last, one cannot confide in a territorial definition of Europe either. Its oriental limit was long set along the Volga; it was then shifted eastwards to the Ural Mountains by Russian geographers, their idea being now widely accepted by other geographers as well as politicians (such as General de Gaulle). South of the Ural Mountains, the territories on the west shore of the Caspian Sea are also European: Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The highest European mountain, Mt Elbrus (5642 meters above sea level) stands there. Asia Minor looks like an enclave in European territory, with Armenia and Georgia to the East, Ukraine to the North, Cyprus to the South and Greece to the West. Should we say “Yekatarinenburg isn’t in Europe" while "Perm is in Europe", or "Izmir isn’t in Europe" while "Larnaca is in Europe"? It seems rather academic.
Deep down, what Europeans have in common, it is the conjunction of a rich and tumultuous past and of a collective commitment to change the world.
The great moments of our past are well known: the Roman Empire, the religious Reform, the 30-Years War and the invention of the nation-state, colonial expansion, the two World Wars in the 20th century.
When discussing Europe, one must never forget that the Roman Empire was the first continental power in history. Its heritage is so huge we often forget about it, driving without our knowing on former roman roads, admiring medieval monuments whose stones were taken from Roman buildings; our Law and education are also more often than we may think based on Roman culture. But how did the Romans manage to build such a vast and long lasting empire? After all, they were originally a modest tribe of central Italy and they established their dominance on the whole of Italy and then on the whole empire rather quickly. Is there not a crucial example for today’s Europe?
Quite simply, Rome offered the conquered people a chance to integrate into the Roman Empire. Through this policy, which was initiated by an emperor of Italian but not Roman origin, Vespasian, Rome became the first world power to deliberately ignore ethnic notions, and to offer to the conquered people an opportunity to share the fruits of peace and wealth instead of the perspective of working for their conqueror like a colonised people. Roman citizenship was granted to large categories of population. The emperor himself wasn’t always a Roman (Antonine was a Gaul), and except in rare cases of fiscal nonsense – yes, it did already happen -, the benefits of integration were superior to those of a violent upheaval. Barbarian invasions themselves had more to do with an extreme form of demand to be admitted into Roman territory than an attempt to destroy the Roman wealth. Among those Barbarians who succeeded in getting there: the Franks, who settled in Roman Gaul, taking a share of the ground and a share of the slaves, but careful not to destroy the wealth they were originally after.
What a pity that 19th century France turned away from the Latin model, possibly in a flare of Frank tribalism, and granted French citizenship only to Christian and Jews in Algeria. That created the conditions for future independence conflicts, the benefits of integration becoming substantially inferior to those of violent upheaval. The appalling “Décret Crémieux” (October 24th, 1870) was well-intentioned, at least towards the Jewish population of Algeria, but as it was deeply harming the interests of the Muslim population, it should have been challenged and found contrary to the Constitution and to Declaration of Human Rights of 1789!
Let’s hope that the unfortunate debate on the limits of Europe, launched at such a wrong moment by the president of the European Convention, will find a pragmatic conclusion: never mind where the exact limits of political Europe will be, as long as the fundamental principles of the European Union are clear, respected and applied by all member states, with no exception of persons, religions or “civilisations”.
Ask the question around you: what do Europeans have in common? The three spontaneous answers from the public are: “race”, “religion” and “territory”. Unfortunately, the first of these three answers is obviously absurd: the European population is deeply heterogeneous, because of immigration as much as of the diversity of its indigenous tribes. The second is more insidiously so, because a large majority in Europe belongs to a Christian tradition. But Europe was never united from a religious viewpoint, and non Christian minorities have always been present: Jews, Muslims, and also the original pagans, who were still very prominent during the first half of the Christian era.
Last, one cannot confide in a territorial definition of Europe either. Its oriental limit was long set along the Volga; it was then shifted eastwards to the Ural Mountains by Russian geographers, their idea being now widely accepted by other geographers as well as politicians (such as General de Gaulle). South of the Ural Mountains, the territories on the west shore of the Caspian Sea are also European: Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The highest European mountain, Mt Elbrus (5642 meters above sea level) stands there. Asia Minor looks like an enclave in European territory, with Armenia and Georgia to the East, Ukraine to the North, Cyprus to the South and Greece to the West. Should we say “Yekatarinenburg isn’t in Europe" while "Perm is in Europe", or "Izmir isn’t in Europe" while "Larnaca is in Europe"? It seems rather academic.
Deep down, what Europeans have in common, it is the conjunction of a rich and tumultuous past and of a collective commitment to change the world.
The great moments of our past are well known: the Roman Empire, the religious Reform, the 30-Years War and the invention of the nation-state, colonial expansion, the two World Wars in the 20th century.
When discussing Europe, one must never forget that the Roman Empire was the first continental power in history. Its heritage is so huge we often forget about it, driving without our knowing on former roman roads, admiring medieval monuments whose stones were taken from Roman buildings; our Law and education are also more often than we may think based on Roman culture. But how did the Romans manage to build such a vast and long lasting empire? After all, they were originally a modest tribe of central Italy and they established their dominance on the whole of Italy and then on the whole empire rather quickly. Is there not a crucial example for today’s Europe?
Quite simply, Rome offered the conquered people a chance to integrate into the Roman Empire. Through this policy, which was initiated by an emperor of Italian but not Roman origin, Vespasian, Rome became the first world power to deliberately ignore ethnic notions, and to offer to the conquered people an opportunity to share the fruits of peace and wealth instead of the perspective of working for their conqueror like a colonised people. Roman citizenship was granted to large categories of population. The emperor himself wasn’t always a Roman (Antonine was a Gaul), and except in rare cases of fiscal nonsense – yes, it did already happen -, the benefits of integration were superior to those of a violent upheaval. Barbarian invasions themselves had more to do with an extreme form of demand to be admitted into Roman territory than an attempt to destroy the Roman wealth. Among those Barbarians who succeeded in getting there: the Franks, who settled in Roman Gaul, taking a share of the ground and a share of the slaves, but careful not to destroy the wealth they were originally after.
What a pity that 19th century France turned away from the Latin model, possibly in a flare of Frank tribalism, and granted French citizenship only to Christian and Jews in Algeria. That created the conditions for future independence conflicts, the benefits of integration becoming substantially inferior to those of violent upheaval. The appalling “Décret Crémieux” (October 24th, 1870) was well-intentioned, at least towards the Jewish population of Algeria, but as it was deeply harming the interests of the Muslim population, it should have been challenged and found contrary to the Constitution and to Declaration of Human Rights of 1789!
Let’s hope that the unfortunate debate on the limits of Europe, launched at such a wrong moment by the president of the European Convention, will find a pragmatic conclusion: never mind where the exact limits of political Europe will be, as long as the fundamental principles of the European Union are clear, respected and applied by all member states, with no exception of persons, religions or “civilisations”.
posted by Antoine Jaulmes at 10:52 AM
0 comments
