#baltic prussia that is | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

hetaliahyperfix · 5 months ago

Text

Hetalia Headcanons: Nation Physiology- Death

Tw: Discussions about death and cultural destruction

In a previous post, I discussed both canon and headcanon ideas about how immortality works. Yet, how does a nation die? It certainly seems like they can endure a lot. Well, this post shall discuss what can and what cannot kill a nation.

Before we get any further though, I will need to discuss something very important if we are to understand this topic: nation vs state.

Nations and states are actually not synonyms of each other, despite many using them as such. In fact, the distinction is important enough for this discussion that I have decided to make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to the differences between them.

Instead of being long-winded though, I have actually put a very useful graph under the cut that will quickly compare the differences between the two:

(Third row from the bottom is wrong. I believe it is supposed to be "Not as stable as a nation" and "More stable than a state.")

In canon, the characters are exclusively referred to as nations, not states. While these things can often coincide, they are not synonyms. I'd also argue that Hima does not use it as a synonym. The characters have been pretty consistently made to represent the nations, or the religious/cultural/ethnic parts of their respective groups (ex: France is not simply the modern borders of the nation-state in today's Europe, he represents the French people and their culture).

Nations have also been shown to almost universally exist before their state does. As an example, America was born before the official establishment of the United States of America (1776 or 1789). If America were simply a state and not a nation, this would not be the case.

This distinction here will actually be very important in understanding what can or cannot kill a nation going forward, so that is why I felt the need to make this distinction clear.

So, using both canon and history, this is what I came up with:

Nations very rarely, if ever, die from occupation. Just about every nation has been occupied at some point. Just as an example, the original strips took place during WW2 when Germany occupied the majority of Europe, yet all those European nations continued to exist. Russia occupied the Baltics as the Soviet Union yet they continued to exist. Vietnam was colonized by France until 1954, yet we wouldn't say she was only born in 1954. A more ancient example is Ancient Rome. We see that, when an empire conquered territories, those nations remained. When the Roman Empire occupied land in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and various nations in Europe, all these nations still remained. At its height, the Roman Empire covered the majority of Europe, the Anatolian Peninsula, the Levant, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. Yet, I am positive all those nations in these areas continued to live but only as part of "his house," so to speak. In canon, characters who are occupied by foreign nations refer to it as living in the other nation's house (ex: the Baltics said they lived in "Russia's House" when they were part of the Soviet Union). Already, we can see why the distinction between state and nation is important. If they were states, they would not survive the occupation.

Territory changes rarely ever kill a nation. Nations in canon are constantly gaining and losing territory. This does not kill them. Even civil wars, despite popular headcanon belief, don't seem to kill nations. As an example, China is canonically over 4,000 years old. Yet, he has had his territory divided by civil wars hundreds of times over his history. In fact, it was such a prevalent thing, it even got its own term coined to describe it: the dynastic cycle. While this graph doesn't show it, you should keep in mind that each time it gets to the part where people revolt, the dynasty would often split into several different states. Here is a map of what this region looked like in 1936, right before WW2.

Loss of state or lack of state borders does not necessarily kill a nation. There is nothing in canon to indicate one way or the other, but I choose to believe that nations can exist even if they don't have official territory to call their own. To act like state borders are the only thing that determines a nation seems to deny the legitimacy of nations that were always nomadic or were forced into a nomadic life due to conquerors ousting them from their homeland. Native Americans groups were sometimes nomadic or were forced out of their home territory by the US government, yet I would not feel comfortable saying that means they weren't ever real nations (in the case of them always being nomadic) or that they ceased to exist as a nation of people (in the case of being forced from their homeland). There are/have been a lot of diasporas of people in the world who were either ousted from their homelands or always nomadic including the Native Americans, the Sami, the Romani, the Jews, the Ainu, the Aboriginal Australians, and more. All of these groups would have or still have either one or multiple personas for their groups, regardless of the fact that they didn't have a state to call their own for a long period of their history. Some of these groups have since been able to get state borders of their own (ex: the Cherokee Nation has a reservation covering multiple parts of Oklahoma). This is not the case for all these groups. This is because some of these groups either have no interest in a state of their own (the various Romani groups) or are interested, but have been denied (the Ainu). Also, the amount of personas they would have varies because not all of these terms refer to a single distinct group. For example, there would most likely be a single persona for the Ainu, but multiple for "Native America" as this term refers to over five hundred different nations native to North America that are around today, and each would most likely have their own persona.

So, with all of that being said, what can kill a nation? Simply put:

The destruction of a distinct national identity of a nation of people. This might seem self explanatory but it requires a bit more explanation. Basically, a nation can exist as long as their people do. "Existing" in this case refers to both physically existing and to culturally existing. So, for a nation to die, they either need to experience the complete destruction of their culture, or the complete death of all their people, or a combination of these two. Let's use a nation that canonically died: Ancient Rome. While I said that states don't need to exist to keep nations alive, they can often be intertwined with the national identity of a people so, in a case where nation-states are the same like Grandpa Rome, the destruction of the state can lead to the death of a persona. The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about the collapse of the Roman identity (in the West, at least) and now, today, you will not meet someone who identifies with the language, religion, and culture of Rome. Nobody identifies as a Roman, at least none who were part of the original ancient culture that Grandpa Rome would have represented. Basically, his culture was effectively wiped out, so he died.

While a lack of state borders in itself won't kill, it can compound the problems that do kill a nation. If death is caused by the loss of a distinct cultural identity unique to that nation group of people, then states can often be very useful in maintaining these cultures. State borders are often founded around distinct nation groups or the formation of states can cause unique nation groups to rise up. So, while nations can exist without state borders, there is also no denying how important they can be with the formation and/or maintaining of national identities. So, while losing state borders in itself won't kill a Hetalia nation, it might lead to circumstances that can kill them aka, the death of their culture.

With all that being said, national identity can be a bit fluid. The culture of China during the Shang dynasty is not the same as the culture found in the People's Republic of China today, yet both are represented by the same persona. I think changes in cultures will not kill a nation as long as you can trace their culture's path pretty linearly and it progresses naturally. One really absurd example of this is Prussia. First he was the Teutonic Knights, then Prussia, and then West Germany. Those are some pretty big leaps (and honestly, I think they don't even make sense and only happened to keep him alive because he is a popular character).

All of this is to say that what ultimately kills a nation is the loss of their people and culture that represents their nation, the culture being the biggest factor.

A nation can die if their people completely assimilate with another culture, destroying their own distinctive national identity they represent. A nation can die if the people comprising their nation all perish, leaving no one left alive that was part of that distinct culture. A nation can die if their people go through a sudden and extreme enough change of cultural identity that they are basically a new group. A nation can die if they lose their state borders and, either gradually or suddenly, the people of the nation associated with that state loses their national identity.

A nation does not die from civil war as long as one or multiple of the states involved still represent the culture of the nation persona. A nation does not die from the loss of land, change of territory, or even complete loss of all land as long as a group exists that still holds onto the national identity associated with their nation persona. A nation does not die from occupation as long as the group occupied keeps a distinct sense of nationally identity associated with the nation persona.

Well, that's all. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk! I'd love to hear your thoughts. Also, if I got any history wrong, feel free to correct me. I did my best to research, but mistakes sometimes still happen.

46 notes · View notes