"Translation" of confusing passages

from

Ferguson's War of the World Reading


 

Page Xxxviii

When I was a schoolboy,” – here (and for the whole paragraph) Ferguson introduces a series of ideas presented by historians in the past that he is about to critique.“class conflict”—here Ferguson means conflict between economic classes (e.g. between the poor and the wealthy)

Supposed division between the proletariat and bourgeoisie” – here Ferguson means “between the poor and the rich”
“political ideologies” – here Ferguson means political beliefs or programs. Democracy, for example, is a political ideology that assumes the best government is one in the people rule

But what about the role of traditional system like religions, or of other apparently non-political ideas and assumptions that nevertheless had violent implications.” – Here Ferguson argues that there might be other ways of thinking beyond “political ideologies” that might also cause violence in the world.“But was it not the case that some of all of these politities were in some measure multi-national rather than national—were, indeed, empires rather than states” – Here Ferguson points out that many of the combatants in the twentieth century were not nations made up a single ethnicity (“France” filled with “the French”) but rather Empires made up many ethnicities. Ferguson uses the word “polities,” the plural of “polity,” which is a general term to refer to a geographic area with a corresponding government.

Page XLI

breakdown in sometimes quite far-advanced processes of assimilation” – Here, Ferguson means that there was frequently ethnic conflict even in places where minority groups were deeply integrated into majority cultures as a consequence of adapting the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture.

this process was greatly stimulated in the twentieth century by dissemination of the hereditary principle in theories of racial difference.” – Here, Ferguson means that ethnic conflict in the 20th century often occurred because of a relatively new concept that differences between groups were biological and inherited.

political fragmentation” means the fracturing or breaking-up of lands into smaller political units. If Staten Island broke away from New York City, it would be an example of political fragmentation.

the frequency and amplitude in the rate of economic growth, prices, interest rates and employment”—Here, Ferguson explains that economic volatility means increasingly frequent and increasingly large swings in prices, employment, and other aspects of the economy. ‘Decomposition of multi-national European Empires”—Here, Ferguson means that for a very long time until the 20th century, much of Europe had been governed by Empire made up many different peoples (“multi-national”) but that over the course of the twentieth century, these Empire broke apart into smaller states, often organized around a single ethnic group.

Page LI

is one of those ‘memes’ characterized by Richard Dawkins as behaving in the realm of ideas the way genes behave in the natural world”—Here Ferguson observes that the cultural concept that there are distinct races of people is able to reproduce itself and get passed down from one generation to another just as a gene might. The irony, as Ferguson notes, is that the idea of distinct races persists despite the fact that there is no scientific basis for it. We might as well believe there are elves.

Page Liii

“This was a profound transformation in the way people thought.” -- By “This” Ferguson is referring to the notion that intelligence or character were inheritable and so the possession of certain races; as Ferguson points out, this idea was relatively new. People HAD believed that power, privilege, and property passed down from parent to child, but the idea that intelligence and character did was a new idea.“one theory asserted that power should not be a hereditary attribute, and that leaders should be selected popular acclamation.” – Here Ferguson explains that new political idea or theories argued AGAINST the idea that political power should pass from parent to child; instead, the new theories argued that leaders should be elected democratically.

Page Lvi

while at the same time owing allegiance to a remote imperial sovereign” -- Here Ferguson means that most peoples’ identities were very local (seeing themselves primarily as residents of village or family, for example), that also recognized themselves as the subjects of usually very distant Emperor or King. Indeed, this “imperial sovereign” might not speak their language. None of this was considered unusual or even wrong.

an Ottoman port of Greek provenance where Jews slightly outnumbered Christians and Muslims” – Here, Ferguson is using the city of Salonika to point out how jumbled ethnic identities could be in some regions, particularly when comparing cities to the surrounding country side. So, Salonika was a city in the (Muslim) Empire of the Ottoman Turks, but most of its inhabitants were Jews, and most of those in the surrounding countryside were Greek-speaking Christians.

Page Lvii

However, with the emergence of the Nation state as an ideal for political organization, these heterogeneous arrangements began to break down.” Here Ferguson argues that once the idea that the best form of political organization was a nation state for a single people (France as a nation for the French, for example, or Mexico as the nation for Mexicans) the patchwork of various ethnicities jumbled together began to encounter difficulty.“restoring their sovereignty” – to build themselves back into a nation organized around a single ethnic group.

complex patchwork of pales and diasporas” – Literally, the Pale was the term given to a region of Imperial Russia in which permanent residence of Jews was allowed, and beyond which Jewish residence was generally prohibited. Here, however, Ferguson uses the term to mean not just the Russian Pale, but as a general term to refer to places throughout Europe to which specific ethnic groups had been consigned to live. Diaspora refers to a spreading of peoples beyond what they see as their homeland. Throughout Europe, many groups had picked up from traditional homelands and scattered throughout the continent in diasporic communities.

Page LXI

planned economy” – Here Ferguson refers to communist countries who had economic systems in which the central governments made all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and service. A planned or “command” economy differs from a free-market economy where prices and decisions about how much to produce of what sort of good gets decided in the marketplace through supply and demand.

Page LXI to LXII

Economic volatility matters because it tends to exacerbate social conflict. It seems intuitively obvious that periods of economic incentives for politically dominant groups to pass the burdens of adjustment to others.” Here, Ferguson observes that when economic shocks hit countries—the price of coffee drops in a country that makes most of its money from selling coffee, for example, groups that are in power try to figure out ways to make less powerful groups bear the burden of the changes.

Page LXII

With the growth of the state intervention in economic life, the opportunities for such discriminatory redistribution proliferated.” Here Ferguson observes that as governments became more involved in the economic life of their citizens, the more opportunities arose for governments to interfere in ways that benefited some groups at the expense of others.